Introduction
AntónioQuadrosandtheProblematicsof AuthorshipandReadershipinMozambique
In‘Alulacompartilhada’(TheSharedSquid),thepoetdescribeshishorror ashewatchesacolonialofficialandanopponentofthecolonialregimein Mozambiqueeatsquidtogether.¹ Fromthe1971collection UmaMeditação, 21LaurentinaseDoisFabulı´riosFalhados (AMeditation,21Laurentinas andTwoFailedLyricalFables),‘Alulacompartilhada’waspublishedunder PortuguesecolonialruleinMozambique.Seasonedwith‘enganos’(trickeries),themealisanexchangeof‘galhardetes’,ofpoliticalallegiances,asthe politicallyambidextrous‘Ópus(cisão…)’(Ohpuss(scission))isrevealedto bepallywiththecolonialregimethatitonlynotionallyopposes.Thesightof thesquidbeingsharedbypoliticalenemiesisenoughtomakethepoetspew words(‘vergomitar’,aneologism).Theresultofthepoet’sheavingisthetext thathisreadershavebeforethem.Hewonderswithsomeironywhetherhis nauseaistheresultofhishavingdrunktoomanyofthebeersthatgivethe collectioninwhichthepoemappearsitstitle(LaurentinaisaMozambican beerbrand)orhisheightenedsensibilitiesasaminorpoet(‘poetazinho’). Eitherway,thefinallinesrevealthatthespeakertoohasbeenpartaking ofsquid:hisvomitsmellsoftheseafoodthathehaseaten.Thespeaker, whoisrepulsedbythisvisionofpoliticalcorruption,isalsocomplicitinthe unseemlymeeting.However,hedoesnotactonhisrevulsion.Hisroleislimitedtoobserving,writing(vomitous)poetry,andretiringtobedtonursea hangover.
‘Alulacompartilhada’raisesseveralquestionsrelatingtothepoliticsof authorshipincolonialMozambique.Whatisthefunctionofauthorsin colonialcontexts?Whatstrategieswereavailabletowriterstocritiquethe
¹ Laurentinas,p.35.WhenreferencingquotationstakenfromworksbyGrabatoDias,MutimatiBarnarbéJoão,FreyIoannesGarabatus,orAntónioQuadros,Iuseabbreviatedtitles, followedbyapagenumber,whereoneisavailable(unlikemostofthetextswrittenbyQuadros, Laurentinas ispaginated)andIprovideanEnglishtranslationofthequotedtext.
DissidentAuthorshipinMozambique.TomStennett,OxfordUniversityPress.©TomStennett(2023). DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198885900.003.0001
colonialregimeinMozambique?Towhatextentispoetryanefficacious mediumtospeaktruthtopower?Canauthorsbepoliticallyindependentthinkers?Whatrightdopoetscomplicitincolonialism’sevilshaveto denouncetheiniquitiesthattheywitness?Thesearesomeofthequestions thatwillorientatemydiscussionoftheworksofGrabatoDiasandtheother pennamesofPortugueseartistandwriterAntónioAugustodeMeloLucena eQuadros(1933–1994).
GrabatoDiasisoneofthreepennamesunderwhichAntónioQuadros publishedliterarytexts.QuadroshailedfromSantiagodeBesteiros,near Viseu,intheNorthofPortugal.HestudiedattheEscoladasBelasArtesdo Porto(nowcalledtheFaculdadedeBelasArtesdaUniversidadedoPorto), wherehealsolectured.HestudiedattheEscoladasBelasArtesde Lisboa andinParisinthe1950s,attheÉcolenationalesupérieuredesbeaux-arts, withagrantfromtheGulbenkianFoundation.
In1964,QuadrosleftPortugalforLourençoMarques(nowMaputo),the capitalofcolonialMozambique.Coincidentally,hearrivedthesameyear thatthecolonialwarstartedbetweenthePortuguesearmyandMozambican nationalistpartyFrelimo(FrentedaLibertaçãodeMoçambique),whenthe latterlaunchedstrikesonPortuguesebasesinthenorthofMozambique.In LourençoMarques,QuadrostaughtattheLiceuSalazar,ahighschool,and gavevoluntaryclassesattheculturalassociationNúcleodeArteonpainting,sculpture,ceramics,andengraving.InLourençoMarques,hewaspart ofaprivilegedsocialelite.WiththepoetRuiKnopfli,heco-editedaliterarymagazinecalled Caliban (1971–1972)forfourissues,publishedinthree instalments,untilproductionwashaltedbythesecretpolice.TheissuesfeaturedworkfromKnopfli,JoséCraveirinha,GlóriadeSant’Anna,Herberto Helder,EugénioLisboa,JorgedeSena,andothers.InMozambiqueand Portugal,Quadros’sartisticactivitieswerevaried:hewasapainter,poet, sculptor,engraver,illustrator,potter,andbeekeeper.²
QuadrosstayedinMozambiqueuntil1984.IntheperiodafterMozambique’sindependence(achieved25June1975),hetaughtattheUniversidade EduardoMondlane,beforemovingtotheDirecçãoNacionaldaHabitação (theMozambicanHousingMinistry),whereheworkedwiththearchitectJoséForjaz.HeinitiatedtheexperimentalTBARN(TécnicosBásicos
² AselectionofQuadros’sartworksarereproducedin AntónioQuadros, OSinaleirodas Pombas(Porto:Árvore,CooperativadeActividadesArtísticas,2001).OSinaleirodasPombasis themostcomprehensiveanthologyofQuadros’sartisticwork,whichisscatteredacrossgalleries andprivatecollectionsinPortugalandelsewhere.
parao/noAproveitamentoRacionaldaNatureza)project,whichsoughtto developagriculturaltechniquesthroughcollaborationbetweenacademics, farmers,andthestate.AlongwithForjaz,heco-producedtheMonumentosaosHeróisNacionais—amausoleumtoimportantfiguresfromthe anti-colonialstruggle.
Intermsofhisliteraryactivities,Quadros’stimeinMozambiquewasthe mostproductiveofhiscareer.Accordingtothedatesofcompositionofhis publishedpoems,thevastmajoritywerewritteninMozambiqueandmany oftheminLourençoMarques/Maputo.GrabatoDias’sliterarydébutwas in1968.Thatyear,thejudgingpanelofapoetrycompetitionheldbythe LourençoMarquestownhallawardedtheirprizetoapoem,accompanied byillustrations,submittedbyanincognitopoetcalledGrabatodeTete(GrabatofromTete).Themysteriousauthordidnotattendtheawardceremony tocollectthemonetaryprize.Twoofthemembersofthepanel,Eugénio LisboaandRuiKnopfli(bothfriendsofQuadros),recountthattheyonly discoveredthatQuadroswasbehindGrabatodeTeteafterthecompetition.³ QuadrosapproachedLisboain1970withthepoemsthatwouldlaterbepublishedinhisfirstcollection, 40eTalSonetosdeAmoreCircunstˆ anciaeuma CançãoDesesperada (40-oddCircumstantialLoveSonnetsandaSongof Despair)andaskedhimtowriteatexttointroducethecollection.Inthe meetingwithLisboa,Quadrosmentionedthathewaspromptedtopublish hispoetrybyhisthenwife,Clara.⁴
BesidesGrabatoDias,Quadroshadtwootherpennames:FreyIoannes Garabatus,afictionalfriaranddrinkingmateofsixteenth-centurycanonical PortuguesepoetLuı´sdeCamões,towhomamocksequelofCamões’sfoundationalimperialepicOsLusı´adas(TheLusiads,1572),titledAsQuybyrycas (1972),isludicallyattributed;and,MutimatiBarnabéJoão,aguerrilla soldierwhosecollectionEu,oPovo(I,thePeople)waspublishedbyMozambique’srulingparty,Frelimo,in1975aspartofMozambique’sindependence celebrations.⁵
QuadrospublishedfivecollectionsunderPortuguesecolonialrule: 40e TalSonetos (1970);thetwinodes, OMorto (TheDeceased,1971)and A
³ EugénioLisboa,ActaestFabula:Memórias,6vols(Guimarães:OperaOmnia,2012–2017), III,p.333–335. RuiKnopfli,‘HomemdoRenascimento’, JornaldeLetras:ArteseIdeias,XIV: 632(1995),14.
⁴ Lisboa, ActaestFabula,III,p.337.
⁵ IrefertotheFrentedeLibertaçãodeMoçambiqueasFrelimothroughoutthisbook.Before theparty’sThirdCongress,heldin1977,thepartywascalledFRELIMO. ArcénioFrancisco Cuco,‘FRELIMO:DeumMovimentoRevolucionárioaPartidoPolítico’, RevistaNúcleode EstudosParanaenses,2:2(2016),138.
Arca (TheArk,1971); AsLaurentinas (1971);and, AsQuybyrycas,‘edited’ byGrabatoDias.In1974,twomonthsaftertheCarnationRevolutionthat broughtanendtoPortugal’sdictatorship,hepublishedathirdodeattributed toGrabatoDias,called PressagaPré-sagaSaga/press:OdeDidácticada PrimeiraSingularàSegundaPluralsobreasTerceiras,SegundasePrimeiras Pessoas(PresagePre-SagaSaga/press:DidacticOdeConjugatedintheFirstPersonSingularandAddressedtotheSecond-PersonPlural,Regardingthe Third,Second,andFirstPersons).Ayearlater, Eu,oPovo waspublished byFrelimoaspartofMozambique’sindependencecelebrations.Besidesa seriesofanonymousarticlesthatappearedinnewspaperDomingofromlate 1980untilearly1981andapoempublishedin1977inPortuguesejournal Colóquio/Letras,Quadrosdidnotpublishagainuntil1986(Facto/Fado: piquenotratadodemorfologia:partevii,Fact/Fate:amodesttreatiseon morphology:partvii)afterhehadreturnedtoPortugalfromMozambique. Intheearly1990s,QuadrosrevisitedtextsthathehadwritteninMozambiqueinthe1970sand1980s.In1991,asecondversionofAsQuybyrycaswas publishedbyAfrontamento.In1991and1992,Quadrosself-publishedthree worksattributedtoGrabatoDiasunderthename‘EdiçõesPouco’thatwere writteninMozambiqueafterindependence: SeteContosparaumCarnaval (SevenShortStoriesforCarnival), Sagapress:PoesiacomDatas (Sagapress: PoemswithDates)andthespiritualsequelto Eu,oPovo,OPovoéNós (WeArethePeople).Thenameofthefictitiouspublisher‘EdiçõesPouco’ (FewEditions)appearstobeanironicreferencetothefactthatitwasa self-publishingventure.
Quadros’stimeinMozambiqueoverlappedwithaperiodofmomentous changeinthecountry.Hisarrivalin1964coincidedwiththebeginning oftheanti-colonialstruggle.HewasinLourençoMarquesonthedayof theCarnationRevolution,whentheEstadoNovo(NewState),Portugal’s dictatorship,wasbroughtdownbyaleftistmilitarycoup.Hewaspresent atthecountry’scelebrationsofindependencefromPortugalin1975,to whichhecontributedacollectionofpoemsattributedtoadeadguerrilla soldier,falleninthearmedconflictagainstthePortuguesewhichcontinueduntilSeptember1974,fivemonthsafterthefalloftheEstadoNovo. QuadrosremainedinMozambiqueuntilthemid-1980s,beforeleavinghavinggrowndisillusionedwiththeever-worseningpoliticalsituationinthe country.
TheCarnationRevolutionmarkedawatershedmomentinMozambique’shistory.AsPatrickChabalremarks,thedate‘notonlymarksthe Portugueserevolution“ofthecarnations”butalso,ineffect,thebeginning
ofthetransferofpowerinthePortugueseAfricancolonies’.⁶ Therevolution setinmotionthedecolonizationprocessthatwouldleadtoMozambique’s independencefromPortugalon25June1975.EugénioLisboa,whowas withQuadroswhenhefirstheardnewsofthecoup,recallsQuadros’sreaction:‘AcaminhodaMatola,Quadrosbarafustava:“Agoraquetudoestava acorrertãobem…”.’(OnourwaytoMatola,Quadrosremonstrated:‘And everythingwasgoingsowell…’).⁷ Quadros’sreaction,asreportedbyLisboa,pointstoanambivalencetowardsMozambique’sindependence,which GrabatoDiasexpressesin Pressaga,publishedtwomonthsaftertherevolution,inJune1974.In Pressaga andin Eu,oPovo,publishedthefollowing year,in1975,GrabatoDiasandMutimatiexpresstheirconcernsabout Mozambique’sfutureand,inparticular,theplaceofsettlersinindependent Mozambique.
ThecontrastsandsimilaritiesbetweenthelatecolonialandpostindependenceperiodsinMozambiquearearecurringthemeofthechapters thatfollow.In DissidentAuthorship,IdeployQuadros’squirkycaseto thinkabouthowtheplaceandfunctionofauthorschangedduringthetwo decadesthatQuadroslivedinMozambique.
AuthorshipandReadership:TwoInterlinkedQuestions
GrabatoDias’sliterarydébutin1968coincidedwiththepublicationoftwo foundationaltextsonauthorship:RolandBarthes’s‘Lamortdel’auteur’ (TheDeathoftheAuthor,1968)andMichelFoucault’s‘Qu’est-cequ’un auteur?’(WhatIsanAuthor?,1969).⁸ Barthes’sandFoucault’sessaysare primarilyconcernedwithprobingthecentralityofauthorsinliteraryanalysis.Theyask,indifferentways,whyshouldwecare who theauthorof agiventextis?Barthes’sdeclarationofthedeathoftheflesh-and-blood author,consignedtoirrelevanceintextualanalysis,waswrittenagainstthe
⁶ PatrickChabal,‘TheEndofEmpire’,inAHistoryofPostcolonialLusophoneAfrica(Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress,2002),p.17.
⁷ LisboaopinesthatQuadroswasreferringtohispersonalprojects.Lisboa, ActaestFabula, III,p.426.
⁸ Inanarticlepublishedin1973,GrabatoDias’sreaderMariaLourdesCortezrepeatedly citesBarthes’s S/Z—thecomprehensiveanalysisofthesameshortstory,Balzac’s‘Sarrasine’ (1830),discussedin‘Lamortdel’auteur’. Cortez,‘GrabatoDiaseasTrangressõesdeLinguagem’,in Craveirinha,GrabatoDias,RuiKnopfli:Leituras (LourençoMarques:Minerva Central,1973),pp.19–34; Cortez,‘Introdução’,in UmaMeditação,21LaurentinaseDoisFabulíriosFalhados,editedbyJorgedeSena(LourençoMarques:JoãoPedroGrabatoDias,1971), pp.5–13.
backdropofaFrenchtraditionofliterarycriticismthatlookedtobiography toexplicateanauthor’sbodyofwork.Barthesisconcernedwithrewritingthetermsofauthorshipandreadership:hereplacesthenotionofthe authorwith‘écriture’(writing)—which,asAdrianWilsonnotes,hewould latersubstitutewith‘Texte’⁹—andthe‘Critic’withadepersonalizedreader. Barthesdramaticallynotesathisessay’sconclusionthatthe‘birth’ofthis readercomesatthecostoftheauthor’sdeath.¹⁰ Barthes’sessayisarejection ofauthorialintention;oftheideathatagiventextcontainsasingle,‘theological’meaning—the‘message’oftheAuthor-God.¹¹ Hedisplacestheact oftheproductionofmeaningfromauthorstoreaders.Forhim,readingis fundamentally not aquestionofdiviningwhattheauthorintendedtosay.
AsAndrewBennetthasnoted,thedeclarativetoneofBarthes’sannouncementoftheauthor’sdeathbeliesananxietythattheauthor—inmany criticalpractices—is not dead.¹² Barthes’stext,moremanifestothancriticalstudy,makesthecasethattheauthorasabiographicalentity ought to beexcisedfromliteraryanalysis.Paradoxically,theanonymousintertext establishedwithNietzsche’spropositionthatGodisdead‘linksauthorism withtheism’.¹³ Similarly,AdrianWilsonnotesthe‘seemingambiguityasto whether[BarthesandFoucault]weresigningadeathwarrant,carryingout anassassination,orpreachingatafuneral’.¹⁴
Foucault’s1968paper,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’is,inpart,aresponseto Barthes’sessay.BennettdescribesBarthesasFoucault’s‘unstatedpremise, hissilentprogenitorandantagonist,his“intertext”’.¹⁵ Foucaultsaysthatit isinsufficienttodeclarethattheauthorisdead;astatementsoobviousis tautologous.¹⁶ Foucaultpositionshispaperasapreliminarypost-mortem andananalysisofthespaceopenedupbytheauthor’sdemise.Foucault callstheauthorafunctionofdiscourse.Toputanametoatext,toattribute authorship,isacomplexprocesswhoseoutcomesarerevealingaboutthe importanceassignedtodifferentkindsoftextsandthewaysinwhichthey areread.LikeBarthes’sessay,Foucault’spaperisacritiqueofacertain
⁹ AdrianWilson,‘FoucaultontheQuestionoftheAuthor:ACriticalExegesis’, TheModern LanguageReview,99:2(2004),343–344.
¹⁰ Barthes,‘Lamortdel’auteur’,in Lebruissementdelalangue (Paris:ÉditionsduSeuil, 1984),p.67.
¹¹ Barthes,‘Lamortdel’auteur’, Lebruissementdelalangue,p.67.
¹² AndrewBennett, TheAuthor (London:Routledge,2005),p.17.
¹³ Bennett, TheAuthor,p.14.
¹⁴ Wilson,‘FoucaultontheQuestionoftheAuthor:ACriticalExegesis’,342.
¹⁵ Bennett, TheAuthor,p.19.
¹⁶ MichelFoucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits:1954–1988,2vols(Paris: Gallimard,2001),I,p.824.
author-inflectedmodeofreading.AccordingtoFoucault,textsarereadin relationtotheauthortowhomtheyareattributedandthebodyofwork ofwhichtheyareaconstituentpart.Forthisreason,thenamesofauthors actdifferentlytoothernamesbecauseanauthorissynonymouswiththeir work.¹⁷
ForFoucault,theauthor-functionconditionsreadingsofliterarytexts.If awriter’sworkislitteredwithinconsistencies,problems,tensions,orcontradictionsbetweenworks,thisisasignofmaturationorevolution—these thingscanbeexplainedawaybybiography.Iftherearetensions,inconsistencies,orcontradictionswithinagiventext,thiscanberationalizedbythe factthatitwasauthoredbyahumanbeing,pronetoperversities,quirks, lapsesinlogic,andirrationality.Theauthorconfersonaworkorbodyof workaunitywhichreconcilesitscontradictions.¹⁸
ThequestionwithwhichFoucaultbeginsandendshispaperisposed bySamuelBeckettin NouvellesetTextespourRien:‘Qu’importequiparle, quelqu’unaditqu’importequiparle?’¹⁹ AsBennettremarksinacomparisonofFoucault’sandBarthes’sessays,Foucaultemphasizesthatin post-Romanticmodesofreading,whospeaks—orwhoreadersthinkspeaks inagiventext—matters,atthesametimethathe‘yearn[s]towardsafuture inwhichouronlyresponsetosuchaquestionwouldbeashrugor,asFoucaultputsit,atthecloseoftheessay,a“stirringofanindifference”.Foucault wantsittomatternotatallwhoisspeaking.’²⁰ SeánBurke’scontentionthat oneofthegreatparadoxesofFoucault’stext—thattheauthorismostalive whenheisconsidereddead,mostpresentwhenheispresumedabsent—has ratherservedtheinverseofFoucault’slongingforaliterarycultureinwhich theauthor’sidentitywereamatterofindifference:thenamesFoucaultand Bartheshavebecomesynonymouswiththeirpositionsonauthorship.²¹
Foucault’sauthor-functiondescribesaspecificsocio-historicalconceptionofauthorship(Western,post-Romantic)—theauthorasanindividualizedsubject.Foucault’scritiqueofauthor-centredmodesofreadingsrests onthetensionbetweentheprimacyoftheauthorandtheauthor’scontinual andendlessdisappearanceinwriting.AsBennettnotes,Foucault’sframing ofwritingasaprocessunderwhichtheauthorcontinuallydisappearsandis
¹⁷ Foucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits,I,p.820.
¹⁸ Foucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits,I,p.830.
¹⁹ Foucault,‘Qu’est-cequ’unauteur?’,in Ditsetécrits,I,p.820.
²⁰ Bennett, TheAuthor,p.19.
²¹ SeánBurke, TheDeathandReturnoftheAuthor:CriticismandSubjectivityinBarthes, FoucaultandDerrida (Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1992;reprint.1998),pp.6–7.
replacedthroughthecreationofwritingsubject(s)contrastswithBarthes’s concernwithwritingasanegativespace:‘Barthesisconcernedonlywitha certainabsence,a“negative”spaceofwriting.Foucaultisconcernedwiththe socialandhistoricalconstructionofa“writingsubject”andpositswritingas aspaceinwhichthisdisappearingisendlesslyenacted.’²² Foucault’smodel focusesonthedisappearanceofauthors,butitalsoconsciouslyaccountsfor theirpersistence.
ElizabethFoxGenovesearguesthatFoucault’sproject(andwemightadd Barthes’stoo)threatentosuppressthevoicesofauthorswhohavenothad thehistoricprivilegedaccesstoprintculturethatFoucaultandothershave enjoyed.²³Similarly,OdiaOfeimunwritesthatthetimingoftheproposition ofthedeadauthor‘rankles[because]itcameatatimewhenAfricanwriters werejustemergingfromthebellyoftheanti-colonialstruggleontoastage thathadbeensetanddominatedbyEuro-Americanwritingforcenturies’.²⁴ Ofeimunargues,moreover,thatBarthes’sandFoucault’sconfiningwriting toadiscursiveactivityinwhichauthorscanonlyimitate,parrot,orparodya pre-writtendiscourse—adiscourseinwhichAfricaandAfricanshavebeen historicallyandlargelyrepresentedbynon-Africans—isinadequateforreckoningwiththeplaceofAfricanauthorslivinginauthoritarian(‘illiberal’) contexts.²⁵ FollowingOfeimun,DorothéeBoulangernotesthattospeakof deadauthorsinthelate-1960sinPortugueseAfricancolonialcontextswould havebeenstrangeindeed,giventhedangerthatLusophonewritersfacedin climatesofpoliticalrepression.²⁶InNgu˜gĩwaThiong’o’sanalysis,thereisno escaping,forAfricanauthorslivinginauthoritariancontexts,statepower: eitherwritersopposeauthority,riskingpoliticalreprisals,ortheyeffectively becomepropagandistsforthestate.²⁷
FollowingOfeimunandThiong’o, DissidentAuthorship considersthe authoritarianfeaturesofthepoliticalcontextsinwhichQuadroswroteas fundamentalfactorsthatshapedtheauthorialstrategiesavailabletohim
²² Bennett, TheAuthor,p.20.
²³ ElizabethFox-Genovese,‘MyStatue,MySelf:AutobiographicalWritingsofAfroAmericanWomen’,in ThePrivateSelf:TheoryandPracticeofWomen’sAutobiographical Writings,editedbyShariBenstock(ChapelHill,NC:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress, 1988),p.67.
²⁴ OdiaOfeimun,‘PostmodernismandtheImpossibleDeathoftheAuthor’, AfricanQuarterlyontheArts,2:3(1998),25.
²⁵ Ofeimun,‘PostmodernismandtheImpossibleDeathoftheAuthor’,p.40.
²⁶ DorothéeBoulanger, FictionasHistory:ResistanceandComplicitiesinAngolanPostcolonialLiterature (Oxford:Legenda,2023),pp.2–3.
²⁷ Ngu˜gĩwaThiong’o, Penpoints,Gunpoints,andDreams:TowardsaCriticalTheoryofthe ArtsandtheStateinAfrica (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1998).
andotherwriters.IncontrasttoBarthes,inparticular,Iconsidertherole playedbymediatingagentssuchaspublishers,editors,andthestateinthe productionoftexts.IarguethatwritersinMozambiquehavenotexperiencedpoliticaloppressionequally.Althoughhisfictionalauthorsinsistently refertotheproblemsthataclimateofpoliticaloppressionposesforthem asauthors,Quadros’sworkswerelessimpactedbythedistinctauthoritariancontextsofPortuguesecensorshipandFrelimorulethanmanyother writers—inparticular,underPortuguesecolonialrule,blackwriters—given hisprivilegedpositionunderbothregimesandthefactthathemostly self-publishedhisbooks.
Quadros’sworksposeafundamentalchallengetohisreaders:howto makesenseofhisoften-crypticwritingswithinthecontextsinwhichthey wereproduced?Aknowinglydifficultwriter,andoneawareofhislackof asizeablecontemporaryreadership,Quadrosinsistentlylookstoposterity,inwhomheinvestshishopesforliteraryrecognition.Inherinsightful introductiontoLaurentinas,MariaLourdesCortezproposestheusefulconceptof‘processosdedistanciamento’(distancingprocesses)—accordingto whichGrabatoDias’sworkcanbebestreadbyconsideringhowtheauthor (Quadros)distanceshimselffromthecontextinwhichhewritesthrough irony,alienatinglanguage,andthecreationofdiscursivesubjectivities(such asGrabatoDias).Cortez’sintroductionbeginswithaparadox.Echoing Barthes,shedisavowsbiographyasakeyfactorinreadingsofliterarytexts, andyetherprefaceisframedbyashort‘autobiography’providedbyGrabatoDiasandincludedathisrequest.²⁸ Cortezdefendsherinclusionofthe biographybyarguingthatitisaprimarytextthroughwhichtheauthor inscribesadiscursiveidentity,amanoeuvrethatshelinkstohisdistancingfromthesocialandhistoricalcontextinwhichhewrites.Shecallsfora nuancedappreciationoftherelationshipbetweenauthorandcontextthat accountsfortheauthor’sagencyin‘distancing’himselffromthecontextout ofwhichhewrites,andwhichisdisposedtoreadingsthattheauthormay nothaveintended.²⁹
Cortez’sframingissimultaneouslyempoweringanddiscouragingfor readers,whoaretaskedwithmakingsenseoftextsauthoredbyacoywriter, whokeepshisdistancefromhisreadershipprimarilythroughhumour.³⁰ CortezexplainsthathumourhastwofunctionsinGrabatoDias’spoetry.
²⁸ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.5.
²⁹ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.7.
³⁰ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.8.
First,itguaranteescriticaldistancefromtheturbulentcontextinwhichthe poetlives,therebyallowinghimtoanalyseitlucidly.³¹ Second,itisthevehiclethroughwhichthepoetcritiquestheiniquitiesofthepoliticalcontext outofwhichhewrites.Playingtheroleofa‘“clown”truculentoetambém melacólico’(atruculentandmelancholicclown),GrabatoDias’s‘carnivalesque’poeticsissubversiveandgiventothe‘destruiçãodaordemedo regimehabituaisdomundo’(destructionofthehabitualorderandroutine oftheworld).³² Inthisway,Cortezforestallschargesofpoliticalandsocial indifference(andevenbetrayal)analogoustothoselevelledagainstpoets suchasRuiKnopfli,andinviteshistoricizingreadingsofthepoet’swork.³³
Cortez’sanalysisisusefulinthatitencouragesanengagementwiththe contextsofproductionofGrabatoDias’stextsthataccountsfortheagency ofthewriter.Accordingtoher,agiventextisnotreducibletothecontextinwhichitwaswritten;textsarealsoresponsestothatsamecontext. Furthermore,shemakesthecase,incontrasttoBarthes,thatbiography is asignificantcontextofliteraryanalysisincontextswhereauthors’relativepositionsincolonialandpost-colonialsocietyhadasignificantimpact onwhattheywrote,andunderwhatconditions.The‘distancingprocesses’ atplayin Laurentinas cannotbeappreciatedbyareaderwhoisunaware ofthecontextthat‘rodeia’(surrounds)and‘penetra[…]’(penetrates)the author,andtheauthor’srelationtothatcontext.³⁴ Cortez’sterm‘distancingprocesses’shiftsthefocus—Barthes’sfocus—fromtheabsolutedenialof anintimaterelationshipbetweenbiographyandliterarytexts,toanappreciationofthewaysinwhichthepseudo-absentauthor(Quadros)rewrites himselfthroughpoetry;anemphasisisplacedontheprocessofthedenialof identityandthewhysandwhereforesofthepoet’sperformativealoofness. Writingoutofthesamecensorshipcontextastheauthorsheintroduces, Cortexdoesnotputhermodeofreadingintopractice:thereisnoreference tocolonialruleortocensorship.Inthisway,sheshadowsQuadros’sown coyapproachtothecontextoutofwhichhewrites.Quadroswithholdskey contextualinformationthathenudgeshisreaderstouncover.
Perhapssurprisinglyforawriterwhoengagesinmetatextualgamesof hideandseekthroughhiscreationofdiscursivefictionalauthors,Quadros’s
³¹ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.13.
³² Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.12;p.9.
³³ ForadiscussionofRuiKnopfli’sexclusionfromtheMozambicancanon,see Manoelde SouzaeSilva, Doalheioaopróprio (SãoPaulo:EditoradaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo;Goiˆana: EditoradaUniversidadeFederaldeGoiás,1996),pp.105–107.
³⁴ Cortez,‘Introdução’,in Laurentinas,p.7;p.8.
literaryworksinsistentlygesturetotheworldoutsidethetextandhow writingscanhaveatangibleimpactontheworld.Therelationshipbetween thetextandtheworldismediatedbyitsreaders,whomQuadrosfrequently positionsashispupils,andhetheirteacher.³⁵ Indeed,Quadros’soutputis markedbyaninterestinpedagogy.GrabatoDiaspublishedthreedidactic odes(OMorto, AArca, Pressaga);apoetic‘tratadodemorfologia’(treatiseonmorphology) Facto/Fado;and,acollectionofdidacticshortstories (SeteContosparaumCarnaval).Quadrosproducedseveraltextbooksat theDirecçãoNacionaldeHabitação.Intheearly1980s,Quadrospenned ashort-livedcolumnin Domingo thataimedtodisseminatetheTBARN project’sfindingswithaviewtoimprovingreaders’useofresourcesand fomentingawiderappreciationoftheworkcarriedoutbythedifferent groupsofworkersthatmakeMozambique’ssocietyandeconomyfunction. AlthoughQuadrosiscautioustocircumscribeandlimittexts’potentialto haveaconcreteimpactonreadersandtheworld,hisoutputdemonstrates aninterestintheorizinghowwritingcanbeusedasavehicletoimprove society.ForQuadros,thewriterisateacherwhoimpartsknowledgeon hisreader-pupils,who,hehopes,willusetheauthor’sideasinpractice. InparticularduringhistimeworkingontheTBARNproject,Quadros grappleswiththequestionofhowtomakeideasresonatebeyondpolitical elitesandintellectualmilieus.Heasks:howcantextsbevehiclesforknowledgeincontextsofhighilliteracy?Howcanwritersmeaningfullymakea difference?³⁶
ThecentralclaimofthisbookisthatQuadros’stextsconceiveofauthorshipasthefraughtnegotiationofdistinctandconflictingfunctionsand features:speakingtruthtopowerandsupportingapoliticalproject;intellectualindependenceversusintellectualcompromise;authenticityversus falsity;thepoetasfigureofauthorityversusthewriterasanoppositional, anti-authoritarianfigure.Thecrucialparadoxofbeinganauthorinthecontextsoflatecolonialandpost-independenceMozambiqueisthatauthors werepoliticizedfiguresthepoliticalimpactofwhoseworkswasnecessarilyminimal.AlthoughQuadroswasdistancedfromtheanti-colonial andnationalistpoliticsofMozambique,hisconceptionsoftheauthoras
³⁵ AccordingtoJoséForjaz,Quadroswasfirstandforemostateacher. JoséForjaz,‘António Quadros,Professor’,in AntónioQuadros,CursodeComunicaçãoGráfica (Maputo:UniversidadeEduardoMondlane,1998),pp.4–5.
³⁶ ForOfeimun,negotiatingthebindofAfricanauthorshipisaquestionoffiguringouthow toreconcilepoliticalactivismandliterature.Ofeimun,‘PostmodernismandtheImpossible DeathoftheAuthor’,pp.46–47.
aninherentlyparadoxicalfigureneverthelessreflectthetensionsofanticolonialandpost-independencepoliticsinMozambique.
IncontrasttothelackofattentionpaidtoQuadros,thereisasubstantialbodyofscholarshiponMozambicanliterature.Scholarsthathave analysedauthorsubjectpositionsinMozambiquehavetendedtohighlightgenderasasignificantandhistoricallyneglectedfactorinLusophone Africannationalisms,anapproachthathasbeenbroughttobearonmale andfemalewriters.PhillipRothwell,HilaryOwen,MarkSabine,andothershavestudiedgenderintheworksofthemalewritersLuı´sBernardo Hownana,UngulaniBaKaKhosa,andMiaCouto.³⁷ Owen’s2007study MotherAfrica,FatherMarx standsasaground-breakinganalysisofthe worksoffourMozambicanwomenwriters:NoémiadeSousa,LinaMagaia, Lı´liaMomplé,andPaulinaChiziane.³⁸ AnaMargaridaMartinsandMaria Tavareshaveconsideredgenderwithintransnationalandcomparativecontexts.³⁹ ThistransnationalapproachtostudyingMozambicanliteraturehas beenaccompaniedbybroadermethodologicalreflectionsbyMariaPaula Meneses,MargaridaCalafateRibeiro,JessicaFalconi,AnaMafaldaLeite, ChatarinaEldfelt,andMartaBanasiakonthestudyofMozambicanculture(s)inthecontextsoftheLusophoneliterarysystem,worldliterature, andtheIndianOcean.⁴⁰
RecentstudiesbyRothwellandBoulangerhavesoughttoaccountfor thesubjectpositionsofAngolanauthorsinrelationtoAngola’sfraughtlate colonialandpost-independencepoliticalcontexts.Rothwell’s Pepetelaand
³⁷ PhillipRothwell,APostmodernNationalist:Truth,Orality,andGenderintheWorkofMia Couto (Lewisburg,PA:BucknellUniversityPress,2004); HilaryOwen,‘WomenontheEdge ofaNervousEmpireinPaulinaChizianeandUngulaniBaKaKhosa’,in NarratingthePostcolonialNation:MappingAngolaandMozambique,editedbyAnaMafaldaLeite,HilaryOwen, RitaChaves,andLiviaApa(OxfordandBern:PeterLang,2014),pp.199–211; HilaryOwen, ‘ThirdWorld/ThirdSex:Gender,OralityandaTaleofTwoMariasinMiaCoutoandPaulina Chiziane.’BulletinofHispanicStudies,July2007:84.4,475-488; MarkSabine,‘Gender,Race andViolenceinLuísBernardoHonwana’s NósmatámosoCão-tinhoso:TheEmasculationof theAfricanPatriarch’,inSexual/textualEmpires:GenderandMarginalityinLusophoneAfrican Literature,editedbyHilaryOwenandPhillipRothwell(Bristol:UniversityofBristolPress, 2004),pp.23–44.
³⁸ HilaryOwen, MotherAfrica,FatherMarx:Women’sWritingofMozambique.1948–2002 (Lewisburg,PA:BucknellUniversityPress,2007).
³⁹ AnaMargaridaMartins, MagicStonesandFlyingSnakes:GenderandthePostcolonial ExoticintheWorkofPaulinaChizianeandLidiaJorge (Oxford:PeterLang,2012); Maria Tavares, NoCountryforNonconformingWomen:FeminineConceptionsofLusophoneAfrica (Oxford:Legenda,2018).
⁴⁰ SeethevolumeeditedbyAnaMafaldaLeiteandMargaridaCalafateRibeiro, Moçambique:DasPalavrasEscritas(Porto:Afrontamento,2008)andthespecialissueof PortugueseStudies LiteraturesandCulturesoftheIndianOceaneditedbyAnaMafaldaLeite, JessicaFalconi,andElenaBrugioni,37:2(2021).
theMPLA:theEthicalEvolutionofaRevolutionaryWriter (2019)traces Pepetela’strajectoryasawriterinrelationtotheideologicalshiftsofAngola’s rulingparty,theMPLA.⁴¹WhereRothwell’sfocusisonapoliticallycommittedwriterwhowasheavilyinvolvedwiththeanti-colonialstruggleandthe earlyphaseoftheAngolannationalistproject,inacontextwherepartypoliticsandliteraturewereevenmoreinterconnectedthaninMozambique,my analysisbearsonanauthorwhoseengagementwithpoliticsinhiswritings islargelyparty-apolitical.Boulanger’s2022book,inwhichsheexamines worksbyeightAngolanwriters,probesthenotionthatpost-independence Angolanfictionhasfunctionedto‘resist’MPLAnarrativesofAngola’shistory.Herexhortationtoanalyseliterature’spotentialtochallengehegemonic narrativesinlightofcomplicity—understoodasauthors’involvementwith theMPLA’snationalistprojectandtheomissionsintheirfictionoverevents suchasthepurgeoftheso-calledfractionalistfactionoftheMPLAof 27May1977—isvitaltounderstandingthecomplexitiesofauthorshipin post-independenceAngolaandtheplaceandfunctionofauthorsinother LusophoneAfricancontexts.⁴²
Unlikemuchrecentscholarship,thepresentstudydoesnottakegenderasitscentralframeofanalysis.GenderisablindspotinQuadros’s grapplingwithquestionsrelatingtoauthorship,owing,inlargepart,tothe factthathisworksarechieflyconcernedwithaccountingforhisownpositionasanauthor.Athemethatrunsthroughoutmyanalysis,andtowhich Quadros’soversightwhenitcomestogenderislinked,isthathispennames’ discussionsoftheirauthorialpositionsattimesbetrayadisconnectwhenit comestothesocial,economic,andpoliticalrealitiesfacedbymostMozambicans.IcounterpointQuadros’sdiscussionsofauthorshipwithdecolonial andpostcolonialtheory.IuseAchilleMbembe’sanalysisoftheassymetries ofcolonialmobilitytointerrogateGrabatoDias’scritiqueofPortugueseand Mozambicannationalismin Pressaga (chapter 2).BenitaParry’scritiqueof aperceivedtendencyindeconstructionistpostcolonialtheorytoprivilege discursiveanalysisovermaterialismframemyanalysisofGrabatoDias’s elusiveauthorialstrategies(chapters3and6).FrantzFanon’sdefenceofanticolonialviolencestandsasafruitfulantithesistoGrabatoDias’spacificist anti-colonialpoetics(chapter4).GayatriSpivak’sprovocativeclaimthatthe subalterncannotspeakisleveragedtoappraiseQuadros’sconstructionof
⁴¹ PhillipRothwell, PepetelaandtheMPLA:TheEthicalEvolutionofaRevolutionaryWriter (Oxford:Legenda,2019).
⁴² Boulanger, FictionasHistory,pp.16–17.
MutimatiBarnabéJoão(chapter 5).Iarguethat,withduemodificationand contextualization,Quadros’sworksstandasausefulcontributiontoreflect morebroadlyonthethemesdiscussedinthisbook:identity,canonicity, representation,andreadership.Thesetopicsoverlapwiththefundamental factorsofpowerandauthoritywithwhichQuadrosinsistentlygrapples.
Pseudonymy,Heteronymy,andAnonymity
Inthecontextsoflatecolonialandpost-colonialMozambique,theauthor wasaninherentlypoliticalrole.⁴³ Intheabsenceofoppositionpartiesanda freepressundertheEstadoNovoandFrelimo-ruledMozambique,poetry wasaprivilegedmediumthroughwhichauthorscouldvoicepoliticaldiscontent.GiventhehighlevelsofilliteracyinPortuguese,mostMozambicans didnothaveaccesstoprintcultureortonationalpoliticaldiscourse.Inthe latecolonialandpost-colonialcontexts,literaturewaspotentiallyavehicleforvoicingtheconcernsofthosewhowereexcludedfromcolonialand nationalistpolitics.
IntheMozambicancontext,severalauthorswereprominentpolitical figuresintheanti-colonialstruggle.ManyoftheseauthorsbecameimportantmembersofFrelimo’sleadershipafterindependence:Marcelinodos Santos(whopublishedpoetryunderthepseudonymsKalunganoandLilinhoMacaia)wasafoundingmemberofFrelimo,whoservedasvicepresidentofthepartyfrom1969–1977andasaministerofeconomic development;thepoetJorgeRebelowastheheadofFrelimo’sCentral Committee;theprosewriterLuı´sBernardoHonwanawasanadvisorto Mozambique’sfirstpresident,SamoraMachel.
Writingwasaperilousactivityfor mestiço (mixedrace)andblackwriters underPortuguesecolonialrule.ThecirculationofthepoemsofNoémiade Sousa,collectedin SangueNegro (BlackBlood),ledtoherbeingexiledto Lisbonin1951,until1964,andthereaftertoParis.⁴⁴CraveirinhawasimprisonedbythePortuguesesecretpolice(knownasthePIDEuntil1969,and
⁴³ WhereIusetheterms‘postcolonial’and‘post-colonial’,Ideploythemaccordingtothe distinctionmadebyJaneHiddleston:‘Post-colonialismis[…]narrowinscopeandnamesa specific,identifiablemoment.Postcolonialism,withnohyphen,islargerandmoreproblematic. […]Overall,itcanbeagreedthatpostcolonialismnamesasetofpolitical,philosophicalor conceptualquestionsengenderedbythecolonialprojectanditsaftermath’. JaneHiddleston, UnderstandingPostcolonialism (Stocksfield:Acumen,2009),pp.3–4.
⁴⁴ NoémiadeSousa, SangueNegro (Maputo:AssociaçãodosEscritoresMoçambicanos, 2001).
thereafterastheDGS)in1965andremainedinincarcerationuntiltheCarnationRevolutionof1974.⁴⁵ Honwanawasjailedin1964,thesameyearhis shortstorycollection,NósMatámosoCãoTinhoso(subsequentlytranslated as WeKilledMangyDogandOtherStories byDorothyGuedes),waspublishedandtheyearinwhichthestruggleforindependenceofficiallystarted inMozambique.⁴⁶
Quadros’sexperiencesofpoliticalpersecutionweremildcomparedto thoseofSousa,Craveirinha,andHonwana.Heexperiencedlittleinconveniencefromthecolonialauthorities,whodonotappeartohaveconsidered himathreat.⁴⁷ Although Caliban (1971–1972),theliterarymagazinethat QuadrosranunderthenameGrabatoDiaswithRuiKnopfli,wasclosedby theDGSin1972,Quadroswasnotimprisoned.Inthepost-CarnationRevolutionperiod,Quadroshadinformalconnectionstotheintellectualsand writerswhowerepartoftheFrelimopartymachinery.
InthecasesofSousa,Craveirinha,andSantos,theuseofpseudonyms functionedtoprotecttheiridentitiesfromthecolonialauthorities.In Quadros’scase,therewaslessofaneedtohidehisidentityfromtheauthoritiesgivenhisprivilegedpositionwithincolonialsociety.Indeed,itappears thatQuadros’spennameswereneverintendedtoconcealhisidentity.In contrasttothecoynessdisplayedduringtheLourençoMarquestownhall poetrycompetition,QuadrossoldcopiesofGrabatoDias’sfirstcollection, 40eTalSonetos,doortodoor.⁴⁸ GrabatoDias’s,Mutimati’sandGarabatus’s textsarelitteredwithreferencestotheirstatusasfictionalauthorsandsigns pointingtoQuadros’shandintheproductionofthetexts.WhenCortez, inherprefatoryessayto Laurentinas,writesthatGrabatoDias’sembedding himselfinadensetextualityallowshimtoappear‘devidamenteescudado’
⁴⁵ FormoredetailsofCraveirinha’simprisonmentandtrialsee FátimaMendonça,‘José Craveirinha,oSonhadordeSonhos’,in PoemasdaPrisão,editedbyJoséCraveirinha(Lisbon: TextoEditora,2004),p.7;note2,p.16.
⁴⁶ Howanawasreleasedin1967. LuísBernardoHonwana, NósMatámosoCãoTinhoso (LourençoMarques:SociedadedeImprensadeMoçambique,1964); LuísBernardoHonwana, WeKilledMangyDogandOtherStories,trans.DorothyGuedes(London:Heinemann Educational,1969).
⁴⁷ AccordingtorecordsheldintheTorredeTombo,QuadroswasinterviewedbyPIDE agentsononeoccasionbeforehemovedtoMozambique.Hewasmisidentifiedastheco-author ofamanifestoco-signedbyAntónioQuadrosFerro,thesonofAntónioFerro,aformerhead oftheEstadoNovo’spropagandaservice.Inaletterdated4September1968,fromaPIDEsubdirectorinLourençoMarquestothedirector-generalofthesecretpoliceinLisbon,Quadrosis identifiedasamemberofagroupofleftistintellectuals.Lisbon,TorredeTombo,PIDE/DGS, SC,CI(2)10,941NT7608;PIDE/DGS,SC,SR-3015/56NT2783.
⁴⁸ InterviewwithEugénioLisboa,Lisbon,August2019.
(dulyshielded)beforehisreaders,sheisnotreferringtothekindofprotectionthatCraveirinha’s,Sousa’s,andSantos’spresudonymsoffered.⁴⁹ The notionthattheconstructGrabatoDias—asafictionalidentity—actsasa shieldtoprotecttheauthorfromhisreadersreferstoaBarthesian-inflected coynesswherebyauthorsanonymizethemselvesthroughthecreationofa textualpersona.
TheconstructsGrabatoDias,Garabatus,andMutimatihavebeen describedasQuadros’s‘heteronyms’—areferencetotheliterary personae underwhichPortuguesewriterFernandoPessoapublishedmuchofhis work.IcontendthatQuadros’spennamescombinefeaturesofheteronyms, pseudonyms,andanonymsand,forthisreason,Ideliberatelydonotrefer tothemaspseudonymsorheteronyms.Instead,IdescribeGrabatoDias, IoannesGarabatus,andMutimatiaspennamesorfictionalauthors.As notedabove,hispennamesperformafunctionverydifferentfromthatof thepseudonymsusedbyseveralofhiscontemporariesinMozambique. Furthermore,hisusageoffictionalauthorsisdistinctfromPessoa’strinityofheteronyms:AlbertoCaeiro,ÁlvarodeCampos,andRicardoReis. IncontrasttoPessoa,who,asRichardZenithandFernãoCabralMartins note,rarelyhesitatedintheattributionoftextstohisvariousheteronyms, Quadrosdeliberatelyplaysontheindeterminacyofhisspeakingsubjects’ identities.⁵⁰ Furthermore,Quadrosneverattemptedtoschematizehisfictionalauthorsintoaheteronymicuniverse.Pessoa,incontrast,fleshedout hisheteronymswithtexts,manyofthemattributedtotheheteronyms, documentingthebiographies,beliefsystems,physicalappearances,and temperamentsofCaeiro,Campos,andReis.WhereQuadrosfurnishesbiographicalinformation,heludicallynudgesandwinksathisreaders,pointing totheartificialityofthepennames.
Quadros’spublishingunderthenameofMutimatiBarnabéJoão,whose nameinvitesreaderstoconsiderhima mestiço orblackauthor,raises ethicalquestionsoverrepresentation.IsQuadros’screationofMutimatiliteraryblackface?WhataretheethicsofaPortuguesewriter’selaboratinga
⁴⁹ MariaLourdesCortez,‘Introdução’,in UmaMeditação,21LaurentinaseDoisFabulírios Falhados (LourençoMarques:JoãoPedroGrabatoDias,1971),p.9.
⁵⁰ InthepublicationplansenttoJoãoGasparSimõesin1932,Pessoastipulatedthat‘todaa obraheterónimaéparaserpublicadasoboseupróprionome,FernandoPessoa,semnenhuma espéciedehesitaçãoouambiguidade’(theentiretyoftheheteronymicoeuvreistobepublished underhisownname,FernandoPessoa,withoutanykindofhesitationorambiguity). Fernão CabralMartinsandRichardZenith,‘Prefácio’,in TeoriadaHeteronímia,editedbyFernando Pessoa(Lisbon:Assírio&Alvim,2012),p.18.Pessoa,‘CartaaJoãoGasparSimões—28-7-1932’, inTeoriadaHeteronimia,pp.255–257.
collectivediscourseattributed,inthetitle,totheMozambicanpeople?Inhis creationofMutimati,Quadrosdoesnotperpetuateanti-blackraciststereotypes,nordidheprofitfromthebook.ReadalongsidethepoetryofGrabato Dias,Ipositthatthecollectioncanbemostproductivelyexaminedasa prankcarriedoutagainstFrelimo’sleadership.Quadrosstrategicallyuses Mutimati’sidentitytoensurethatthecollectionwaspublishedbytheparty, giventhatFrelimowouldnothavepublishedacollectionattributedtoaPortuguesewithanamelikeAntónioQuadros.Astrikingperversityof Eu,o Povo (I,thePeople)isthatthepoemsrevealaconcernwithforegrounding theissueswithanindividualclaimingtorepresentacollective,inabook whosetitleandframingtextsputthepoetforwardasaspokespersonfor theMozambicanpeople.⁵¹ Quadros’spuncturingoftheroleofspokespersonattributedtohisauthorialconstructrevealsasuspicion,alsoexpressed inthetextsofGrabatoDias,withcollectivediscoursesandtheformationof thecollectiveconstruct opovomoçambicano.
TheDifficultiesofReadingQuadros
Quadros’sworkshaveneverhadasizeablereadership,owingtothemarginal literarycontextinwhichhepublishedthemandthedifficultiesthathis poetrypresentstoreaders.Mostofhisworkshadsmall,singleprintruns andmanyhavebeenhistoricallydifficulttoaccess.⁵² Littleofhisworkhas beentranslatedintootherlanguages.⁵³ AntónioCabritahasdescribedGrabatoDiasasa‘poetaintratável’(inaccessiblepoet)forcritics.⁵⁴ Thereis apaucityofcriticalstudiesonQuadros,limitedtotheworksofMaria
⁵¹ WhereIreferto‘thepeople’or‘theMozambicanpeople’Iusethetermasitisdeployed inFrelimodiscourses;thatis,anationalistconstruct.
⁵² Thisissuehasbeenalleviatedrecentlybythewelcomepublicationofananthologyof GrabatoDias’swork,organizedbyPedroMexia,whichincludesextractsfrom 40eTalSonetos, OMorto,AArca,Laurentinas,Pressaga,Facto/Fado and SagaPress JoãoPedroGrabatoDias [AntónioQuadros], OdesDidácticas (Lisbon:TintadaChina,2021).Apocketbookeditionof Eu,oPovo (Lisbon:Cotovia,2008)isalsostillinprint.
⁵³ Allthepoemsfrom Eu,oPovo weretranslatedbyChrisSearleintoEnglish,in SunflowerofHope:PoemsfromtheMozambicanRevolution (London:AlisonandBusby,1982), pp.84–109.FrederickWilliamstranslatedselectstanzasfrom AsQuybyrycas andfivepoems from Eu,oPovo (‘Relatório’,‘CamaradaInimigo’,‘Eu,oPovo’,‘Venceremos’,and‘PésdaMesa’) intoEnglish.Thetranslationsappearinhisbilingualanthology, PoetsofMozambique/Poetas deMoçambique:ABilingualSelection (NewYork,NewYork:Luso-BrazilianBooks;Provo, UT:BrighamYoungUniversityStudies;Maputo:UniversidadeEduardoMondlane;Lisbon: InstitutoCamões,2006),pp.276–287.
⁵⁴ AntónioCabrita,‘TudoéEscritaeatéCertasCoisasEscritas’,inAntónioQuadros, OSinaleirodasPombas (Porto:Árvore,CooperativadeActividadesArtísticas,2001),p.213.
LourdesCortez,EugénioLisboa,AméliaMuge,FrederickG.Williams, Maria-BeneditaBasto,AntónioCabrita,MurilodaCostaFerreira,andRita MaiaGomes.⁵⁵ StudiesofQuadros’sworkhavetendedtofocusonMutimatiBarnarbéJoãoandFreyIoannesGarabatus,despitethefactthatonly onecollectionisattributedtoeachofthosefictionalauthors,whereasnine collectionsareattributedtoGrabatoDias. DissidentAuthorship isthefirst attemptatabook-lengthstudyoftheworksofQuadros’sthreepennames.
ThedifficultiesofreadingthepoetryofGrabatoDias,Mutimati,and IoannesGarabatusaremanyandvaried.Quadrosself-publishedmostofhis poems,manyofwhichappearnottohavepassedthrougharigorousediting process.Thetextscontaintypographicalerrorsandunevenuseofpunctuation.Attimes,itisunclearwhoisthesubjectinagivenverbalconstruction. Quadros’sidiosyncraticuseofvocabularymeansthathisuseofimageryis, onoccasion,ambiguous.⁵⁶ Itisnotalwaysclearwhethertheambiguitiesin thepoetryaretheresultofaconsciousartisticchoiceortheunfortunate by-productofamisprint.
Quadros’suseofpennamesalsopresentsachallengetohisreaders. Quadros’sdeploymentofhispennamesisludic,correspondingtotheimpishnessthatCarmelaCiuraruidentifiesinsomeusagesofpseudonyms:
Anomdeplumecan[…]provideadivinesenseofcontrol.Nowritercan determinethefateofabook—howthepoemsornovelsareinterpreted, whethertheyarelovedorgrosslymisunderstood.Byassumingapenname, though,anauthorcanclaimterritory,seizepossessionofaworkbefore thereaderorcriticinevitablydistortsit.Inthisway,theauthorgetsthe lastlaugh:despisemybookasmuchasyoulike;youdon’tevenknowwho wroteit.Howeverpetty,suchtrickeryyieldsinfinitepleasure.Obfuscation isfun!⁵⁷
ThegamesofhideandseekthatQuadros’spennamesplaywithhisreaders establishaperverserelationshipofresistanceanddependencewiththem thatissubtlydistinctfromthatenvisagedbyCiurarufortheauthorhiding
⁵⁵ Theworksoftheseauthorscanbeconsultedinthebibliography.
⁵⁶ AnotableinstanceisthelengthysectioninAArcadedicatedto‘aola’,discussedbyCabrita inhisessayonQuadros’spoetrypublishedin OSinaleirodasPombas:Cabrita,‘TudoéEscrita eatéCertasCoisasEscritas’,inAntónioQuadros, OSinaleirodasPombas (Porto:Árvore, CooperativadeActividadesArtísticas,2001),p.204.
⁵⁷ CarmelaCiuraru, NomdePlume:A(Secret)HistoryofPseudonyms (NewYork:HarperCollins,2012),p.xxv.
behindapseudonym.Quadroscountsonsomeofhisreadershipbeingin theknowastotheidentityoftheauthorandothersbeinginthedark.
LikemanyotherwritersinMozambiqueopposedtocolonialrule, Quadroscodedhisanti-authoritarianandanti-colonialpoliticsinwhathistorianOliveiraMarquesdescribesasa‘highlyoriginalcrypto-writing’and RussellHamiltonasa‘hermetismoambı´guo’(ambiguoushermetism)that allowedauthorstobypassthecensors.⁵⁸ However,thecensorshipcontext doesnotentirelyexplainthedifficultyofQuadros’spoetry.Hecontinuedto usethecrypticstylethathehaddeployedinhisobliqueanti-colonialpoetry inthepost-independenceperiod.Thecrypticbentofhispoetryentailsa consciouswithholdingofinformationfromhisreaders.AsGrabatoDias notesin Facto/Fado,histextsconcealasmuchastheyreveal:heremarks thathe‘feigns’(‘finjo’,aloadedverbthatrecallsFernandoPessoa’sclaimthat thepoetisa‘fingidor’[feigner/faker])andthat‘Estousempreocultandoalgo noabrirdaescrita’(Evenwhenmywritingappearstoopenup,Iamalways hidingsomething,p.28).ThisquotationpointstothefactthatGrabatoDias isconsciousofthedifficultiesthathispoetrypresentstohisreadersandthat hedeliberatelyclosespartsofhistextsofffromthem.Italsodemonstrates acuriousperversityofGrabatoDias’swritings,inparticular.AlthoughGrabatoDias’spoetryisoftenopaque,heiskeentoflag,inrelativelylegible terms,thathispoetryisdifficulttocomprehend.
AfurtherdifficultyinreadingQuadros’sworks—inparticular,thoseof GrabatoDias—ishighlightedelsewherein Facto/Fado:‘Digo-me,redigome,contradigo-me’(Italktomyself,Irepeatmyself,Icontradictmyself, p.13).Although,attimes,heflagsthatheisconsciousoftheinconsistenciesinhispoetry,aswiththeambiguitiesthatarisefromalienatingsyntax, vocabulary,andtypographynotedabove,readerscanneverbesurethata givendisjunctioninGrabatoDias’stextsiscalculatedoraccidental.One areawhereQuadros’sfictionalauthors are consistentisthedistinctiveantiauthoritarianstrandthatrunsthroughouthiswork.Duringthelatecolonial period,thepoet’sidiosyncraticanti-authoritarianpoliticsaredirectedatthe colonialstate.Afterindependence,Mutimati(in Eu,oPovo)andGrabato Dias(in OPovoéNós)detectandcritiqueFrelimo’slatentauthoritarian tendencies.
⁵⁸ A.H.deOliveiraMarques, HistoryofPortugal,2vols(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press,1972–1976),II,p.187; RussellHamilton, LiteraturaAfricana,LiteraturaNecessária,2 vols(Lisbon:Edições70,1981–1984),II,p.65.
AccordingtotheindividualsthatIhaveinterviewed,Quadroshadnoformalpoliticalaffiliations.AlthoughsympatheticwithFrelimo’sprojectbefore theparty’sThirdConference,hewasnotamemberoftheparty,norwashe amemberoftheAssociaçãodosEscritoresdeMoçambique(Association ofMozambicanWriters),awriters’collectivefoundedbyFrelimo.However,evenifQuadroswasnotinterestedincurrentaffairsorpartypolitics, hispoetrydeploysvariouspoliticaldiscourses:thelanguageofmedieval hierarchies,colonialism,and,inthepost-independenceperiod,theMarxistLeninist-inflectedbuzzwordsfavouredbyFrelimo.Attimes,Quadros’suse oflanguagerelatingtocolonialismisinfelicitous.In AArca,thepoetmakes theaggrandizedandironicclaimthathe,alone,isslave(‘escravo’)tothe powers-that-be.GrabatoDias’slikeningofhispositionasapoetbenefitingfromthepatronageofhisauthoritarianmasterstoslaveryin1971, onlyadecadeafterforcedlabourinMozambiquewasofficiallyabolished,⁵⁹ revealsadisconnectfromtheharshrealitiesfacedbymanyMozambicans underPortuguesecolonialrule.Quadros’sironicandself-aggrandizinguse oftermssuchas‘escravo’(slave),inparticular,todescribehispositionunder colonialruleistheresultofamappingofthelanguageofcolonialauthoritarianismontotheliterarypoliticsofbeingananti-colonialPortuguesewriter withaprivilegedsocialpositionincolonialMozambique.
Thisbookisdividedintosixchapters,inwhichIconsiderthepoliticsofauthorshipinMozambiqueinrelationtothethemesofidentity, canoncity,representation,andreadershipthroughreadingsofQuadros’s literaryoutput.
Inchapter 1,ItracehowtheroleofauthorsinMozambiquechanged fromthelatecolonialtothepost-colonialperiods.IlocatethecentralparadoxofauthorshipinMozambique—thattobeanauthoristobepolitically essentialandpoliticallyuseless—inthecuriousconsonanceofdiscourses onauthorshippromulgatedbythePortuguesedictatorshipandbyMozambicannationalists.
Inchapter 2,IuseGrabatoDias’sidentityasacasestudytodiscuss theparadoxesof moçambicanidade (Mozambicanidentity).Icontrastthe configurationofGrabatoDias’sidentityinthelatecolonialperiodwith itsframinginthepost-CarnationRevolutioncontext,arguingthatthe shiftinGrabatoDias’sidentitymapsontothesuddenchangeinpolitical paradigm.ThetrajectoryofGrabatoDias’sidentityrevealsthedisjunction
⁵⁹ EricAllina,SlaverybyAnyOtherName:AfricanLifeunderCompanyRuleinMozambique (Charlottesville,VA:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2012),p.9.
betweentheutopianuniversalismof moçambicanidade asaloosecultural identityacceptingofsettlerwriterslikeQuadrosandtherelativelyrigid nationalistdefinitionunderlyingFrelimo’sconceptionofMozambicancivic identity.Inthelatecolonialperiod,GrabatoDias’sLuso-MozambicanidentityfunctionsasaformofresistancetoPortuguesecolonialrule;inthe post-independenceperiod,hefearsthathisidentitywillexcludehimfrom thenewnationofMozambique.
Inchapter 3,IanalyseQuadros’sengagementwith OsLusı´adas,amajor workofthePortuguesecanonbyLuı´sdeCamõesthatwasappropriatedby theEstadoNovoasafoundationalimperialtext.AsQuybyrycasanditspreface,authoredbydissidentcriticJorgedeSena,providesubversiverereadings ofCamões’sepic.Quadros’sandSena’sreframingsofCamõesdrawoutthe tensionsandambiguitiesin OsLusı´adas asacountertotheauthoritative interpretationsofconservativeliterarycritics.In AsQuybyrycas,opacityis highlightedasatextualstrategythatforestallsattempts,bypoliticalauthorities,toappropriateliterarytexts.IdeployQuadros’snuanceddiscussions ofthepitfallsofsuchastrategytochallengedeconstructionistpostcolonial criticism,whichpositsambiguityasanhistoricallyeffectiveanti-colonial tool.
Chapter 4 analysesthecrypticanti-colonialode AArca,inwhichGrabatoDiasraisesquestionsovertheroleandfunctionofwritersincontexts ofcollectivepoliticalstruggle.GrabatoDias’sidiosyncraticanti-colonialpoliticsstandasacounterpointtoFrelimo’smilitarizedpoliticalstanceandto theparty’spositionontheroleofliteratureintheanti-colonialstruggle.I interrogateGrabatoDias’sidiosyncraticpacifistanti-colonialpoeticsusing Fanon’sdefenceofanti-colonialviolence.
Inchapter 5,Iexaminethephenomenonofcollectivepoetrypublished byFrelimothroughthecaseofMutimatiBarnabéJoão’sEu,oPovo.Ianalyse Quadros’sattemptin Eu,oPovo toreconciletheanti-colonialandpostcolonialfunctionsofpoetryinMozambique:resistancetopowerandthe expressionofthenationalistproject,respectively.Mutimati’stextisconcernedwithchallengingFrelimo’spopulistdiscoursesandwithemphasizing therolethatindividualscanplayintheprojectofnationalreconstruction.
Inchapter 6,Iexaminequestionsrelatingtoreadershipinthreetexts authoredbyGrabatoDias:theshortstories SeteContosparaumCarnaval,theprefaceto Eu,oPovo’sspiritualsequel, OPovoéNós;and,a crypticglossofMutimati’s Eu,oPovo,authoredbyGrabatoDias,from Sagapress.Iusethesetextstoproposeameansofreconcilingthedebate inpostcolonialstudiesconcerningthemodesofreading—historicistand
deconstructionist—mostappropriateforapproachingtextswrittenincolonialcontexts.Furthermore,IexamineQuadros’sframingofliterature’s potentialtohaveatangible,positive,andmaterialimpactonsociety, throughitsreaders,inlightofdecolonialtheory’semphasisonacritical practicedirectedtowardsradicallytransformingtheworld.
Afigurewhostraddledthecolonialandpost-independenceperiods inMozambique,Quadros’scaserevealsthecontinuitiesanddisjunctions betweenwhatitmeanttobeanauthorincolonialandFrelimo-ruled Mozambique.AlthoughQuadros’sdisconnectfromthepolitical,social,and economicrealitiesfacedbymostMozambicansdistortshisframingsofhis ownrelationshiptopower,hisworksoftendisplayaremarkableperspicacityregardingthecomplexitiesofcolonialandpost-colonialMozambican politicsandtheproblematicofauthorshipinMozambique.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
up to a most romantic pitch. She was in his confidence, and knew how deeply he was involved in that fatal business in Ireland; any reference to the affair agitates her violently. At the time of O’Connor’s trial at Maidstone (a few months after Ld. E.’s death) she was at Goodwood; he being but too intimately connected with Ld. E., made her, of course, anxious about his fate: in short, she was ill. Ye Duke of Richmond[265] worked up his imagination, and fancied her grief arose from fear for O’Connor’s safety, she being in love with him. He went to her in the most affectionate manner, and proposed, if she would confide in him, to obtain O’Connor’s release, and assist their marriage. She assured him she only felt the regard due to him as a friend of her own and her brother’s. He is a strange, odd man. His conduct to Ly. E. Foster is very unaccountable. He is always talking and writing as if he intended to marry her, and yet the marriage is not more advanced than it was two years ago. She came here the other morning. As soon as ye Dss. of L. heard she was here, she immediately begged to see her in her room, a thing that very much flattered Ly. E., and added to her hopes.
I have had very little time for reading: I have, however, contrived to read something, half Bernier’s Travels into Hindostan, and about as much of Pennant’s Hindostan, a part of a great work called Outlines of the Globe.
12th April.—Mimi left us yesterday. Dumont dined with me, a remarkable lively pleasant dinner. I reproached myself for being so cheerful without Ld. H., for I never am completely so if he is away. He went to the House of Lords; intended speaking, but was unwell. He entered a protest, which stands a good chance of being erased, as Ld. Auckland has found out that a sentence in it reflects upon the H. of Lords.[266] I went in the evening to Dss. of L., and Ly. Bess. To-day I had fifty visitors, among them Ld. Hobart.[267] He is pleasing, sensible, and well-looking, the finest teeth possible. He exhibited his high sense of a point d’honneur in marrying Mrs. Adderley. When her husband died Ld. H. fulfilled the promise made in the warmth of his heart, tho’ she was old, ugly, and vulgar. The heats of Madras
LORD HOBART
released him of his burdensome duty About a year since she died. He is very kind to her son, Mr. Adderley.
Ly Bess., Morpeth, and Bor., dined here, very cheerful and comfortable. The Hambro [sic] mail confirms the report of Jourdan’s being beaten by the Austrians.[268] The Austrian troops are very much attached to the Arch-Duke. Their cry is ‘Live Charles and Francis!’ I had the happiness of seeing Webby three times, but by stealth, at my mother’s; she insisted upon my hazarding an interview. He was very affectionate. He seems clever, but is not handsome. He is cold in his disposition, and taught by his father to be a boaster. He is at Harrow. From my window I see the church; often do I sigh to be nearer to him.
16th April, ’99.—On Saturday, ye 15th, I dined with Mrs. W., and in the evening went to the Opera with Mde. de Coigny.[269] On Sunday Ld. H. dined with Ld. Thanet. Ld. Granville and Mr. Hamilton dined with me, a pleasantish day. Monday, dined with my mother, went to the play; Canning, etc.; very pleasant. To-day Ld. and Ly Bess. dined, Ld. John Townshend,[270] Ld. Morpeth, Mr. Adderley. Hare was ill, and could not come. The General said it was impossible —his constant reply when he refuses. Ld. John married Mrs. Fawkener. He is one of the wittiest men there is; his verses are excellent. Like the rest of his family he is mad; never enough to be confined, but often very flighty. He is admirable at mimicking, not only of a person’s manner, but invents a subject, and talks upon it as they would. He did not shine particularly to-day This morning I had a prodigious levée; among the many were two new ones, Ld. Brooke[271] and Sr. Watkin. The first is rather handsome, talkative, like his father, but less tiresome, tho’ he promises a fair rivality. A few years of baronial retirement at Warwick Castle, with the benefit of his father’s loquacious society, will secure his inheritance of the taste. Sr. Watkin[272] is a Grenville in person and manner all over him; his tongue is immensely too big for his mouth, and his utterance is so impeded by it that what he attempts to articulate is generally unintelligible.
LORD MORPETH
Ld. Morpeth is perfect in person and manner; he has the air noble without haughtiness, and his mirth is cheerful, not boisterous. What Ld. Wycombe said of him is very descriptive, ‘He is an excellent specimen of aristocracy.’ He has inherited a considerable portion of his father’s love of fashion, but as it does not run away with him, I see no fault in it, tho’ he sometimes allows his judgment to be guided by it. His understanding is excellent; he is fond of literature, and is reckoned a good scholar. He has rather too much diffidence of his own abilities, and will frequently be silent, tho’ he has a strong opinion upon the subject discussed, unless he has some established authority to support him. What he says is always well expressed, with great neatness and precision. He seldom enters into an argument at length, but his observations are invariably correct and judicious. He is a chaste poet, and has written many very pretty things. His passions are not strong; he can never enjoy the extreme of delight, or suffer excess of sorrow. Not that he is deficient of right feelings; he can be angry, but not vindictive. Lately he has given in to a love of play, by which his temper is at times irritated. He is exemplary as a son, and has such strong principles of honour that he will excel in every station. He is very much attached to Ld. H.
Canning was very entertaining, he can be extremely so. I made him repeat his parody upon Lewis’s Alonzo and Imogene. It is comical, and goes very well with the music:—[273]
A Parson so grave and a Baron so bold Conversed as the coach drove along; Many stories they heard, many stories they told, Parson Legge[274] was the parson, his stories were old, And ye Baron was Lord Boringdon
There is more, but I forget it.
Ld. Lansdown came to see me yesterday. He looked very well, and appeared more cordial to me than he has done since Ld. W.’s affairs have worried him. There is certainly something very whimsical in my situation with respect to him and Ld. W.; each suspect I prefer the other, and both have taken an aversion to me on that account,
for Ld. W is really so displeased with me that in his letters he never names me, or does he write, as he used to do, frequently to me. Arduous would be the attempt to decipher Ld. W.’s character. The most predominant feature is the love of singularity. His success in that aim is most favourably aided by his possessing innately a large portion of it. He endeavours more to surprise than to please. His sarcastic humour is excellent, the gravity of his manner sets off his wit. It is difficult to ascertain whether he is in joke or earnest, and he frequently begins seriously a conversation which his love of persiflage makes him end ironically
21st April.—Wednesday, 17th, dined with the Dss. of Leinster; went to the play. Returned here. Thursday, Lds. Digby, Kirkwall,[275] and Mr. Adderley dined. Friday we dined alone, went to the play with Mrs. Smith. Saturday we dined alone; went to the Opera. Smith dined to-day Lord Macartney came to see me; he has been very ill, seriously so with gout, etc., etc. I asked him his opinion of Hastings, whether, tho’ a tyrant, he administered the Government of India with ability. He said his testimony would be that of an enemy, as they had quarrelled in India upon the subject of the Nabob of Arcot; but his opinion of him was that he was a man of violent passions, who would stop at nothing where his avarice, ambition, and revenge could be satisfied; that, as to his public conduct, had he not been recalled the English settlements would have been ruined. He deprecated politics, and lamented Ld. H.’s decided opposition, and quoted a maxim of Ld. H.’s grandfather’s that no man ought to be in Opposition above six months, just to show what his abilities could do, that he might be justly estimated. This conversation reminded me of Hare’s story of Ld. Macartney’s reason for not adhering to Mr. Fox. Hare asked him how it happened that, connected as he had always been with the Fox family, he never was politically united with them. He said he loved consistency, for if he had once gone into Opposition, he must always have continued so. ‘Why, no,’ replied Hare; ‘if the Opposition got into power, maintaining their principles, you would then not always be in Opposition.’ ‘No, no.
LORD MACARTNEY
Once in Opposition, always in Opposition. I love uniformity.’ This was all the answer he could extract from him.
Gilbert Wakefield pleaded again in person at the King’s Bench in behalf of his pamphlet. He first compared himself to Paul pleading before Festus, and throughout manifested a firm conviction that he was a martyr to his principles, and endeavoured to show the heroism with which he submitted to the persecution. In the course of his speech he named Nero, Tiberius, and Polypheme. Ld. Kenyon, in the summing up, said an English jury would not be browbeaten, notwithstanding all he said about the Three Roman Emperors.
Tierney said he was expected at dinner where he dined, and that the effect was comical when his apology came, giving for excuse his imprisonment. Ld. Thanet is very apprehensive as the day approaches for his trial.
The Dss. of Gordon[276] was laughing at Borino, [277] saying he had sat by her for an hour talking of such strange things—morale and physique, upon which Ld. H. said well enough that he certainly could only comprehend half his discourse. C. Ellis came to see me, the first time since his marriage. I thought there must have been something extraordinary to keep him so long away, and Ly B. let me into the secret, the origin of which is Ly. Hawkesbury’s extreme prudery. She is shocked at the thoughts of my knowing Mrs. Ellis, and I suppose C. felt an awkward shyness at coming without naming her; but he need not have been under any alarm on my account. It is difficult to affront or mortify me. The first I hope my sense and temper will always avert, and the second I am insensible to, as I know the singularity of my position too well not to be blunted to all occurrences that otherwise might humiliate. Prudery comes with an odd and questionable aspect from a Hervey Lord Bristol is full of wit and pleasantry. He is a great admirer of Lady Hamilton,[278] and conjured Sr. W. to allow him to call her Emma. That he should admire her beauty and her wonderful attitudes is not singular, but that he should like her society certainly is, as it is impossible to go beyond her in vulgarity and coarseness.[279] So much so, that the Austrian Ambassador’s sarcasm is excellent. After showing her attitudes,
which she does by representing the finest statues and pictures, he asked, ‘Et quand est-ce qu’elle fera Miladi?’ Her vulgarity destroyed the illusion when I saw her once. She had worked one’s imagination up to a pitch of enthusiasm in her successive imitations of Niobe, Magdalen, and Cleopatra. Just as she was lying down, with her head reclined upon an Etruscan vase to represent a water-nymph, she exclaimed in her provincial dialect: ‘Doun’t be afeard, Sr. Willum, I’ll not crack your joug.’ I turned away disgusted, and I believe all present shared the sentiment.
Her extreme beauty attracted the notice of Romney, the painter, in London, who had her to sit as a model. Mr. Greville[280] took her into keeping, and, finding she was tiresome, got rid of her by sending her to Sr. Wm. to put her upon the Opera. Sr. Wm. was old and loving, and, after living a short time with him, she persuaded him into marrying her, which he did; and by so doing cut Mr Greville out of the inheritance he had long expected.
LADY HAMILTON
Sunday, 28th April.—Wednesday 24th, dined with Ly B.; only Ld. H. and myself; went to the play afterwards. On Thursday, 25th, we had all the Anti-Jacobin wits to dinner, Ld. Hobart for the first time; he is facetious and convivial. I liked him very much. Canning made a good joke upon Borino’s comparing Mr. Adderley to an ostrich, and enumerating the characteristics of that very foolish bird, which did very well at first, but grew tiresome. It is the fault of that set to wear a joke threadbare. We had Frere, the first time since his appointment to Canning’s place.[281] Since favoritism is à l’ordre du jour, I am rather glad he is a sharer, tho’ I think he cannot make a good man of business. He is distrait and poetical, and in lieu of writing a dispatch may be tempted to pen a sonnet. Saturday, Marsh came. Ld. H. dined at the Royal Academy, and I dined at L. House, Ld. L. being very kind and cordial. In ye evening went to ye Dss. of L. On Sunday we had a large party here, Lds. B., M., L. G., Amherst, Adderley, etc., etc., and Bannister,[282] who was very comical and burlesque. It being the eve of Mimi’s marriage, I slept at Ly. Bessborough’s, that I might be ready in time for the wedding. I invited my party to supper; the four gallants, the Dss. of Devonshire came, and the Duke of
Bedford. The change in former is painful to see; scarcely has she a vestige of those charms that once attracted all hearts. Her figure is corpulent, her complexion coarse, one eye gone, and her neck immense. How frail is the tenure of beauty! Alas! too true, too trite a saying. The next morning I went to the wedding; all parties behaved with propriety. Ly. Pembroke[283] deemed it incumbent on her to hatch up a whimper during the ceremony, but as it was evidently a homage to her idol—decorum—it was received as such, and affected none. The excellent Dss. felt the awful moment of separation. The event took place in Harley Street, and afterwards the married pair set off to Moneyhill. The whole of the Dss.’s family came here, dined, and slept. Ld. Henry was one of their party; they all went to-day.
30th April.—Marsh made a proposal to Ly. Lucy, which she accepted, but the Dss. rejected, on the score of there not being a competency In refusing him they know not the excellence they lose. He is in himself a treasure, and his popularity will ensure him high preferment; he is at the moment wretched, and goes to-morrow in consequence of the unpleasantness of the circumstance.
Adderley came and sat with me some time; Ld. G. L. has a nonsensical joke of his being smitten, mais je n’en crois rien. The old compère[284] is quite reconciled to me; he has called twice to see me. Nobody dined here but Mr. Morris, Mrs. Wyndham; and Mde. de Coigny came in the evening.
MADAME DE COIGNY
Mde. de Coigny is remarkably witty; there are many of her bons mots on record. This evening talking of Ly. Pembroke’s having still beauty, she denied it by saying, ‘Apparemment Milord aime les traditions.’ When young she was the rage in Paris; her voice is horrible, worse even than Ly. Malmesbury’s. She said, ‘Je n’ai qu’une voix contre moi, et c’est la mienne,’ an assertion not quite true, as a wit seldom has a friend; at least, they sacrifice any for a repartee. She lost a very intimate friend’s love by a sarcastic joke. The Duchesse de Richelieu was a young, pretty woman, with red hair, and her friend. At a petit souper it was remarked that ye
Duchesse was almost the only woman in Paris who had not been accused at least of a galanterie, ‘C’est vrai, mais comme Samson elle trouve ses forces dans ses cheveux.’
Mrs. Fitzherbert has never forgiven the opinion Mde. de C. entertains of a conspicuous part of her person—an opinion she declared in her reply to a person who observed that Mrs. F.’s neck was uncovered ‘et qu’elle avait besoin d’un fichu.’ ‘D’un fichu! Point du tout, c’est une culotte qu’il faudra.’
2nd May.—Yesterday little Marsh left us, with a heavy, aching heart. Many visitors in the morning; my mother, Ly. Lucy, etc. to dinner. Adderley, Ly. L. slept. The D. of Bedford and Ld. Thanet called in their way back from St. Anne’s, where they had been to consult with Mr. Fox upon the propriety of the measure suggested by Erskine. The measure was that Ld. Thanet should write a letter to the Attorney-General, declaring upon his honour that he was innocent of the charge against him, etc., etc. Mr. Fox disapproved of that scheme, as it seemed like begging mercy. The evidence was so contradictory that even Kenyon, who is bitter against them, acknowledged in his summing the difficulty of ascertaining exactly the truth. There is no doubt whatever that Ld. T.’s activity was merely defensive, nor is there any more that Sheridan’s evidence got him found guilty. When questioned by Law, [285] S., instead of answering immediately, paused, and then replied satisfactorily to the interrogation, but this silence of several minutes previous to replying sufficed in the minds of the jury, and it is allowed on all hands that their verdict proceeded from their conviction that Sheridan was wavering between falsehood and truth, and that the first triumphed. This was confirmed by Law, in a solemn, impressive manner, repeating, ‘You will recollect, Mr. Sheridan, that you are upon your oath.’ The sentence is to be given to-morrow, and fine and imprisonment is expected, but to what amount and extent depends upon their notion of punishing a peer for example sake. Ld. H. and ye D. of Bedford are to be in court at eight, to give bail, in case the sentence is deferred till next term. Fergusson they talk of dis-barring. Those who were really the stimulators of the enterprise were
LORD THANET’S TRIAL
Sheridan himself and Dennis O’Brien. It is even a doubt whether Fergusson was apprised of the scheme. S. was adroit enough to persuade him to suppress in his defence the truth of a circumstance, that, as it appeared in the charge, made against him. Just before the scuffle F. leaned across the table to whisper to O’Connor; the truth of the whisper was an endeavour to deliver unseen a note from S. to O’Connor, the words of which were as follows: ‘As soon as sentence is passed, leap over the bar, run to the right, and we will manage the rest.’ Had this been stated F. might have escaped, but he was persuaded it would have been unhandsome to invoke an unsuspected person; for so little was S. supposed to have assisted, that in court he received thanks from the Judges for having exerted himself to quell the disturbance. S., since he gained such credit as a witness in the State trials (Horne Tooke’s) by his wit and repartee, can never give a direct answer, and is always more occupied how to gain applause by his reply than how to serve those in favour of whom he is called.
The Brest fleet is out, and the alarm is great.[286]
Mlle. Clairon’s[287] Memoirs are published by herself. She gives a few anecdotes of her own life, suppressing the unfavourable truths of her very private history. Her remarks upon the different parts she has acted are good, and show a great knowledge of the art she professed. Her enthusiasm that it should be perfectioned is entertaining.
8th May.—The Court would not accept any bail for Ld. Thanet. Kenyon implied a reproach upon the Attorney-General for having worded the indictment too favourably. He aggravated the heinousness of the offence, and gave some hints about the specific punishment, which is imprisonment for life, confiscation, and the loss of the right arm. It is said the court have no discretionary power, and that the specific punishment must be given, or one very slight. The first most probably will be given for the disgrace of it, but there is no danger of its being enforced; the King will remit the whole.
Ld. T. is now resident in the King’s Bench Prison. Mme. Bonawitz is with him; his friends all visit him, so his time passes cheerfully. If
he has society and bonne chère he does not care much about anything else. Mme. Bonawitz is a woman of whom I heard much when I was at Vienna; she was of the second order of noblesse, and reckoned rather pretty, and very gallant. She eloped with Ld. T. and came to England with him. Gilbert Wakefield is also in ye K. B. till sentence is given. His speech, nominally in mitigation of punishment, but, in fact, as Bobus says, in aggravation of it, will probably have secured him imprisonment for life. He is a singular being, of the most primitive manners and uncouth conversation imaginable.
Ld. H. made a very good speech upon the case of a man[288] called up and punished by the H. of Lords for a libel against the Bishop of Llandaff. As soon as he had done speaking, Lord Kenyon came up to him and said, ‘You must give me leave, my Lord, to shake hands with you; I wish I could make a convert of you.’ ‘You would find that rather a tough job,’ replied Ld. H. ‘Aye, I am afraid so, but I should like to launch you from another slip.’
LORD THANET’S TRIAL
I dined on Saturday at Lansdown H.; Ld. H. dined with Mackintosh. I took Tierney with me. Ld. L. was not offended, but on the contrary seemed very much pleased. I saw Sheridan in the morning, and told him all that was said about his evidence; he was in a great rage. Someone at the theatre ran after him, to ask if algebra was not a language. ’ To be sure, an old language, spoken by an ancient people called the Classics.’
May 18th.—We had a good deal of company in the course of last week; the Bessbro’s dined, Ly. Anne,[289] etc. Lady Lucy came and stayed several days. Mr. Adderley frequently dined and slept. I once went to L. H.; very dull. Nothing very interesting occurred. Been ill myself for 15 days with cold. Inoculated Ste., who has the smallpox very badly, not dangerously, but suffers extremely; still at its height. Misses Fox and Vernon came yesterday. Ld. G. Leveson and Ly. B. came unawares; all parties annoyed at meeting. The French are beaten in Italy; the French deputies to Rastadt murdered either by their escort or the peasants,—a sad violation of good faith in either case.
22nd May, ’99.—Many of Ld. Thanet’s friends have recommended that he should write a letter to the King to beg a pardon. Ld. H. is averse to the measure, as is Tierney. I have persuaded the former to keep out of the way, as he will with difficulty restrain himself from delivering his opinion, and should it weigh in Ld. T.’s mind sufficiently to make him regret the proposed scheme and circumstances afterwards turn out harshly, the reflection of having been instrumental in the making him adopt a line of conduct that might be unsuccessful would be distressing. Ld. H. thinks it will be better to allow the business to take its course, as the AttorneyGeneral is almost pledged to drop the prosecution if there is any chance that the specific punishment will be given; as he has already declared his intention in the drawing up of the indictment was to avoid the possibility of that obsolete law being revived. Fergusson is determined against applying for a pardon. He rather seems to enjoy the alarm of Ld. T., as he thinks his Jacobinical associates in the Corresponding Society[290] will admire his heroism and contrast it with Ld. T.’s anxiety; perhaps, in truth, it may be a sort of triumph.
The horrible murder of the French Deputies returning from the Congress of Rastadt to France has made a great sensation in the Republic.[291] Their energy has gone, and nothing could have revived it, but some outrage similar to the one committed. I do not think people here are as much shocked as might have been supposed, which is singular, as such a violation of the faith of nations ought to make a common cause. The French have written an excellent address to all countries. I think it is clear the Austrians sanctioned the robbery for the sake of the papers, and the fury of the soldiers did the murder.
23rd May.—A letter from Ld. Thanet just come to say that he has written to His Majesty to interpose against the specific punishment. It has been graciously received, and it will be complied with. He says he had so many intimations that such a step was expected of him, that he thought it impossible not to do it. I sincerely rejoice at his safety. Fergusson, I believe, has not applied; he is left to stand the brunt of all the popular vengeance. I
LORD THANET’S TRIAL
cannot but feel for him. It has lately been told me confidentially that Sr. F. Burdett would have been in the indictment, if Coutts had not availed himself of his secret influence with the King.[292] He certainly was begged off.
On Saturday, 18th May, dined at L. House; afterwards went to the Opera. On Sunday a large party here. Miss Fox and Ly. Lucy in the house. Went to the play with Miss Vernon, Tierney, and Adderley. Tuesday, a dinner at Ld. Robert Spencer’s for the Beaus. Wednesday, dined at the Smiths to meet Mackintosh; afterwards, Ld. B.’s. Thursday, a great dinner here, the Beauclerks, Bessbro’s, young Lords, etc. Went to a masquerade at Mrs. Walker’s after. Friday, yesterday, dined at Ly. B.’s early, to be in time for Sheridan’s play of Pizarro.
26th May.—Mackintosh[293] is the man who wrote a vindication of the French Revolution in the beginning of it. He was then exclaimed against as a furious Jacobin. Nay, two years ago he wished to come here, and I refused seeing him on account of his principles, as I have always dreaded this house becoming a foyer of Jacobinism, and have invariably set my face against receiving all who are suspected of being revolutionists, etc., etc. However, since M. has regained his character, and is become a friend of Canning’s, etc., I admit him; and he yesterday dined here with a numerous party—Ly. B. and Ly. Lucy, ye young Lords, Sturges,[294] Newbolt, Adderley, etc. The conversation was entertaining without great brilliancy. Mackintosh is delivering public lectures at Lincoln’s Inn, upon the law of nature and the law of nations. The objects are, first, to get money, and, nextly, to usher himself into public notice as a man convinced of the fallacy of those doctrines he lately laboured to establish. He manœuvres with dexterity and tacte not too suddenly renouncing them. The lectures are rather Scotch professorships; in his first he attacked with wit and sarcasm Godwin’s metaphysics and all the new system of benevolence and universal philanthropy.
Jealous people always defeat their object; this was oddly exemplified at the masquerade. The jealousy of a person’s wife suggested a sort of half
HUSBAND AND WIFE
love, half confidence, that I am almost sure could never have arisen but from that stimulus. I hope the fancy will subside, as I shall lose, if it continues, a cheerful and frequent associate. Another adventure, for which I warmly condemn myself for having allowed to go on, has occupied me lately; half curiosity and half shame have impelled me to continue what I ought to have checked. However, absence will chill more than prudery, and that will take place in a few days. Even that goût, I suspect, originated from the remark of a third person— Ld. G. L. Gratified and blessed as I am in the full possession of my dear husband’s love, these idle affairs afford little or no gratification, and the very little they do proceeds from a sort of vanity to find that his liking is not merely the effect of blind partiality. The mystery I abhor, and my conscience frequently smites me for having a thought, much more an action, unknown to Ld. H. But, every circumstance well considered, I am satisfied by reason that I ought not to disclose goûts passagers that are in themselves of no importance, but become so as soon as communicated; and I have reason to believe that many a woman has smarted from the mistaken point d’honneur of revealing every occurrence without discrimination. The principle is excellent, but ought to be modified with discretion, else the effects may be pernicious to both parties.
I do not think the propriety of restraint is applicable to the husband towards the wife. If I were to say so openly it would excite a smile, and might be construed into licence for myself, tyranny to others; but it is not for that reason. A woman may be so confiding in the affection of her husband, that were he to impart an advance made to him by another, mirth and contempt would be the only passion excited, and if the woman happened to be her nominal friend, why, it would only break the fragile link of female friendship; whereas, so delicate are the feelings of men upon those occasions, that none could listen with composure to the tale of love, his wife the heroine. Hatred and estrangement would ensue, and a friend of some years’ standing would be given up for the fancy of desire and the babbling of a woman.
30th May.—I prevailed upon Ld. H. to go to Court. Ld. Wycombe crossed the street to Mr. Adderley, and said, ‘So Holland has been at
Court; that is owing to her Ladyship’s activity.’ Ld. L. went into the country for a few days, and among some other clumsy jokes with Mr. Tierney, such as the disappointment he would feel at my not dining there, his own accommodating spirit in inviting us together, etc., etc., ‘It’s quite strange, one cannot retire for a short time without hearing such strange events. “Lord Holland has gone to Court,” and “Sheridan has written a most loyal speech.”’ If there is anything with regard to the Court remarkable, it is, as General Fitzpatrick says, that Ld. H. had not been before. Miss Fox is, I believe, displeased; it does not accord with her metaphysical, philosophical, pure, philanthropic, etc., system of politics to reverence a Monarch. The abstaining from going, as a measure, is perfectly contemptible. If a man is in Opposition, he opposes the Ministers and Government, not the King personally, and a peer diminishes his own consequence if he does not support the dignity of the throne.
On Sunday we dined at Ld. Boringdon’s, a dinner made for me. The Bessboroughs, ‘the Three,’ Adderley, etc. Jekyll was an interloper, and offended me by his manner of talking of Fergusson’s being disbarred. God knows, I have no liking to F. On the contrary, he is one I never will allow to pass the threshold; but it is disgusting to hear a man in calamity trampled upon, and shows a considerable want of delicacy in Jekyll, one of the profession, discussing before F.’s enemies the utility of expelling him the profession. After dinner I went for a short time to the Duchess of Leinster’s; afterwards supped at Lady B.’s; the Dss. of Devon., Ly. Elizabeth, and her own set.
It has happened comically enough that Lady Lucy, who, by-the-bye, is amorously disposed, has fallen in love with Mr Adderley The event of the amour does not promise successfully for her, as he is in no ways inclined to give a favourable ear to her passion, though probably, like all persons beloved, his vanity would so far conquer his natural good nature, that he would not object to her making a fool of herself on his account. He wishes to stay longer than originally intended, but he had better go, and probably will. T. perfectly ridiculous, quite my shadow. Went on Monday to Pizarro, Sheridan and Tierney, Adderley, etc. The first came into my box perpetually to explain
MR. SHERIDAN
whenever there was a failure in the representation. I was surprised at his eagerness, and glad to find that drinking has not so totally absorbed his faculties, and that he is still sensible to fame. About him my reason and impulse always are at variance; reflection convinces me he ought to be despised for his private life and doubted for his political, but whenever I see him, if but for five minutes, a sort of cheerful frankness and pleasant wittiness puts to flight all ye reasonable prejudices that I entertain against him.
Francis[295] diverted me excessively the other morning. I got up unusually late, and, whilst at my toilet, I was told he had been in the library some time. Ld. H. was still in bed, and as he is at times amusing, I sent to say I would receive him as I dressed. He came to my door, and there paused, saying, ‘Are you sure the person you sent for was me? Can such a favour be intended me? What? Will you really admit me into your private room?’ When I repeated the invitation, he was delighted. He is very vain, and any distinction quite turns his head, especially from people he rather calls great folks. Ld. Ossory came soon, and asked what had happened to put Francis into such spirits, as his eyes glistened with delight.
We yesterday dined with the General in his new house, early, that we might be in time to see Pizarro; he is a very severe critic. He censured much, and admired some parts; indeed, the most phlegmatic censor must praise a good deal, however German rhapsody may occasionally burst out. My box was full, Grey, Tierney, Whitbread, Lds. Lorne, Bor., etc., and several who could not gain admittance. There is a report, not very improbable as to truth, about, viz., that Lord Lansdown is to marry Miss Coutts. There is very little doubt that, as far as she and her connections are concerned, the alliance will be anxiously sought for, but whether he will incur the risk and ridicule is more doubtful. As far as my wishes go, I hope neither this nor any other marriage will take place; his marrying will destroy his system of living. The ladies, who now accommodate all their arrangements for his convenience, will become more independent and have more leisure. Love for Ld. H. and curiosity for our society will throw them more constantly with us, and, tho’ I do not approve Ld. Wycombe’s principle to the extent he urges it, that to maintain a
good understanding with his father he never will see him, yet I am convinced that to keep well with friends you should not live too much with them; for which reasons I deprecate the probability of long and frequent visits, especially as one half of my male and female intimates are placed at the top of Miss Fox’s black list, such as Ld. G. Leveson, Tierney, Mrs. W., Ly. Bess., Ly. Plymouth, Canning, Frere, etc., etc., without end.
The Beaus. returned to Moneyhill. The only possible chance I foresee in that ménage for disquietude, will be his indolent, shy habits, which will rivet him more strongly to the country. The inclination for retirement will be aided by a half jealousy, a propensity he is too prone to; but children, qualms, and fright will soon diminish her power and inclination to charm. Sr. Lionel[296] came and passed the day here. His brother has married the ci-devant Ly. Abercorn. Ld. A. behaved very shabbily; he chicaned about stocks and pounds sterling. Sr L. has been kind and friendly; tho’ he is rough and selfish, he is capable of doing good-hearted actions. Ld. Hobart, Mr. Adderley came to tell me, is to be married on Saturday; Miss Eden is the bride. She is handsome and sensible.
A very old acquaintance called here yesterday: I regretted not seeing him—Bob Markham,[297] a great friend of poor Ld. Henry’s[298] and as much a lover as his friendship for his friend could allow. He is married, and settled in Yorkshire. His chief merits are good-nature and a willingness to oblige; his talents are moderate, for to say the truth he is rather dull, but the strongest symptom I feel of age is a strong partiality for those I have known in earlier days. A long acquaintance is with me a passport to affection. This does not operate to exclusion of new acquaintances, as I seek them with avidity; not so much, however, for my own gratification, as from a notion that mixing with a variety of people is an advantage to Ld. H., because as he, thank God, lives constantly at home, unless I were active in collecting fresh materials for society, he might be too apt to fall into a click [sic], a calamity no abilities can fight against. Ideas get confined, prejudices strong, and the whole mind narrowed to the standard of your own set. Canning is an instance of the badness of
AN OLD ACQUAINTANC E
that plan; his jokes are local, and unless he ‘gives his little senate laws’ he is silent. Mankind are formed to live together; the more they mix with each other the better able a man is to judge them and conduct himself; otherwise it becomes what a priest once said of the universal truth, ‘Orthodoxy is my doxy.’
The Prince has given up Lady Jersey, and is now trying to renew with Mrs. Fitzherbert. He ought to try and make his peace with heaven if he has any account to settle, as he does not look long for this mortal life.
Gilbert Wakefield was this day condemned to two years’ imprisonment in Dorset jail. The sentence is severe; one cannot but regret severities should fall upon a man of learning. The Editor of The Courier was also sentenced to 6 months’ confinement and 200l. fine, for calling ye Emperor of Russia a tyrant. He seems to have been a fool to have been at the trouble of saying such a platitude; ’tis like knowing that B follows A in the alphabet.
1st June,’99.—Lord Belgrave,[299] in consequence, as Lord King says, of morality and the whole duty of man being the haut ton, has taken up the Sunday newspapers, and on the score of their diverting people from their duty on the Sabbath wants them suppressed. Sheridan, who never lets an opportunity escape where an allusion can be made to Ld. B.’s Greek, finding Lord B. wanted time before the division on the motion, observed that the noble Viscount wanted it put off to the Greek Calends. And of the war, when there came up petitions from the country, Ld. Belgrave said that the signatures were not to be depended upon, as he knew many places where boys at school were made to sign—a scandalous proceeding. ‘Infamous,’ said Sheridan, ‘to take them from their Greek.’
Hare, Fitzpatrick, Francis, Tom Sheridan,[300] Tierney, and, by chance, my mother and Sr Gilbert, dined here yesterday Sheridan was to have come, but was detained in the H. of Commons by Palmer’s business. The wits and humourists were in high spirits; nothing could be pleasanter. We were persuaded to go to Ly. Heathcote’s masquerade. Some observations about me, jokes about Tierney and I conspiring together. Ly. Cholmondeley, Dss. of Gordon,
very cordial; stayed most of the time by the Dss. Devon., Ly Bessborough, Ly. Melbourne. Prince there, knew me directly; looking dreadfully ill.
7th June.—On Saturday, 1st June, Canning, Bessbro’s, Ld. Morpeth, Bor., G. Leveson, Adderley, Sturges, G. Ellis, etc., dined; rather pleasant. In the library I had, after dinner, a long conversation with Canning. He expressed great satisfaction at acting in concert with Ld. H. about the Slave Trade, and said, from the pleasure that it gave him, he could judge how great it would be if they always agreed. He talked a good deal of the folly of Whig principles and the great families, etc. I thought I perceived, and that probably arose from some circumstance that I knew of, from his inquiry as to my politics, influence over Ld. H., etc., that he wanted rather a confidential opening from me, but however I may wish, I did not encourage it, as Ld. H. is too firmly attached to the obsolete doctrine of Whiggism to be yet open to persuasion. On Sunday I had persuaded Mr. Fox to come, but as the object was to make him meet Porson,[301] and he was prevented coming, I sent an express to stop his leaving St. Anne’s till Wednesday.
On Sunday Ly. Lucy came, Adderley, the Smiths, Hamilton, and Mackintosh. After dinner they had a very metaphysical argument upon infinity, etc., etc. On Monday Ld. H. went to the H. of Lords. Lady Lucy returned home to be with the Duchess, as it was the melancholy anniversary of poor Ld. E.’s death; only Miss Fox, Buonaiuti,[302] Drew, and self at dinner. Tuesday, King’s birthday, a review by him of the London Volunteer corps in the park. Tierney came, sat the whole morn, reading to me. He selected nonsensical passages from old poets applicable he declared to his own situation. I am afraid he will annoy Mrs. T., if he continues his devoirs so obsequiously. Instead of going home to prepare himself for the Budget, which was to come on next day, he returned to dinner here. We had a lively party, Ly. Lucy, Miss Fox, Capt. Murray, Lewis, Mr. Robinson, Drew, etc., Adderley. I had a violent headache. Wednesday, Mr. Fox came, Ld. Robert, and the General came to meet him; the Smiths, etc., stayed. I was obliged to go to the play, as I had promised to meet mother. The King, etc., were there. Tierney,
Adderley, Lewis, and Sheridan in my box; came home and found Fox in delightful spirits. He went away the next day early. I dined at two with Drew, and set off to see sights; my shadow came with us. I sent him off to dine with his wife, and went to Covent Garden. To-day, 7th June, Borino dined. I passed great part of the evening and night in the garden; the weather is delicious, and the nightingales in full vigour of song. I have not see any of my own appendages to-day.
Harvey Aston[303] was killed in duel at Madras; it was the only one out of the number he has fought in which he was in the right. He fought successively with two of his officers, I believe, on the same day. A man to try O’Byrne’s Irishisms asked gravely in which of the duels was he killed, the first or second. ‘Aye, by my faith, I don’t know,’ replied O’Byrne. No man was ever more favoured by the ladies than H. Aston. His figure was fine and manly, but to like him was a sensual taste. Naturally good-humoured, he unfortunately was incessantly fighting; he never was angry, but always provoked others. From what I knew of him I should have described him as a vain, empty fellow; but Mr. Adderley says he knew him at Madras, and occupation brought out his understanding, and he was becoming an able and useful officer and man of business.
HARVEY ASTON
The loan has been raised very favourably. Stocks have risen and are expected to get to 60. Wickham’s[304] journey to Switzerland encourages the hope of peace; falsely, I fear, as I collect from my Ministerial friends that the hope of placing a King upon the throne in France is revived with ardour The Directory are tottering, but their fall will only produce another revolutionary government, perhaps as bloody and horrible as Robespierre’s.
The spring is very tardy, vegetation is now as it was in the first week of May,’98; our garden is delicious. Drew and I have begun our lounging drives in the Green Lane in the garden chair; I have spent many a harmless, cheerful, instructive hour so. I have been out of spirits at the approach of a crisis very painful to my feelings, but my duty and justice compel me to it; I shall soon be obliged to dwell on the particulars. Heaven knows the anguish I undergo; but the less I
think, the better armed with resolution shall I be for the event, let it take place as it may.
Ld. Berkeley[305] has entered his pedigree to prove his marriage 14 years ago. He has had a public marriage subsequent to that period, 7 years since. The clergyman who married him is dead; the witness is the lady’s brother, the register torn; in short, the story is dark and, I suspect, fabricated by himself, but I cannot but wish he may substantiate his pretence and prove his marriage.
H. H. 11th June,’99.—Yesterday sentence was given upon Ld. Thanet and Fergusson. Considering the King’s answer to his letter, it appears extraordinary that so harsh a judgment should be pronounced—a year in the Tower, and a fine of 1000l.
On Saturday, 8th June, passed the morning very pleasantly in the garden; many visitors. Dined at Lansdown House, went with my mother to the Opera. Walked most part of the way home; the nightingales delightful, weather serene. On Sunday our usual party of the Smiths; besides them some odd people, such as Sir John Riddell, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Douglas, the Bishop of Salisbury’s son. Also we had Adderley, Ly. Lucy, Cornewall, Hamilton: stayed in the garden past midnight. The harper played under the trees. Monday, my mother and Sr. Gilbert came to stay some days with us. Misses Vernon and Fox came and stayed all night. Ld. H. just gone down to the H. of Lords; the Russian subsidy. A note from Ld. Thanet to say Bob Adair is to come in for Appleby.[306]
19th June, 1799.—On this day my mother left me. During her stay I disclosed an event that has incessantly occupied my mind for now 3 years. I restored to her father my little daughter Harriet,[307] who I had concealed, pretending her dead.
HER DAUGHTER HARRIET
When I left Florence in ’96 my situation was such that a final separation with Sir G. W. was inevitable as soon as I returned to England. The certainty of losing all my children was agonising, and I resolved to keep one in my possession, and I chose that one who, from her age and sex, required the tenderness of a mother. Besides,
